From: | "Tamsin" <tg_mail(at)bryncadfan(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Jan Wieck" <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Pgsql-General(at)Postgresql(dot)Org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: permissions & foreign keys |
Date: | 2000-09-04 13:51:08 |
Message-ID: | NEBBKHBOBMJCHDMGKCNJAEPDCCAA.tg_mail@bryncadfan.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
That's cleared that up, thanks!
Tamsin
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Wieck [mailto:janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com]
Sent: 04 September 2000 15:50
To: Tamsin
Cc: Pgsql-General(at)Postgresql(dot)Org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] permissions & foreign keys
Tamsin wrote:
>
> I don't really see why it wants to update feedback_type? Can anyone tell
me
> what I'm doing wrong, or will I just have to grant update on feedback_type
> (and all other tables referenced by FKs)?
>
It doesn't want to update it. It just does the SELECT ... FOR
UPDATE to lock the now referenced row. Doing it without a
lock would make it possible, that just after your backend
checked that the PK row exists but before you got a chance to
commit, another backend could delete that PK without seeing
your just inserted reference. End would be a violated FK
constraint.
The bug here is, that doing a SELECT ... FOR UPDATE already
requires UPDATE permissions. The correct solution would be to
require a REFERENCES privilege for the owner of the
referencing table. But we don't have that up to now.
Maybe I can do something about it for 7.1.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2000-09-04 14:49:38 | Re: permissions & foreign keys |
Previous Message | cuke | 2000-09-04 13:43:37 | To: He Weiping Laser Henry |