From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Solution for RI permission problem |
Date: | 2000-09-20 18:06:16 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.10.10009201100050.57382-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
As a question, since I don't have a source tree available here at work,
will there be an issue if an elog occurs between the various two user id
sets? Just wondering, because most of those statements are do some
SPI thing or elog.
Stephan Szabo
sszabo(at)bigpanda(dot)com
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Here's what I've come up with to avoid "permission denied" errors when a
> RI trigger has to lock a PK table. Whenever the SELECT FOR UPDATE is
> executed I temporarily switch the current user id to the owner of the PK
> table. It's not the grand unified solution via setuid functions that was
> envisioned now and then, but it does the same conceptually. For a
> terminally elegant solution I can only suggest not using the SPI
> interface.
>
> I recommend this patch to be checked out by someone knowledgeable in the
> RI area.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2000-09-20 19:11:59 | [patch,rfc] binary operators on integers |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-09-20 17:46:28 | Re: loss of portability in ecpg |