From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Bertin, Philippe" <philippe(dot)bertin(at)barco(dot)com> |
Cc: | <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: IF- statements in a rule's 'DO INSTEAD SELECT ...'- statement |
Date: | 2002-05-07 15:03:20 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0205071050130.9071-100000@polluelo.lab.protecne.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Bertin, Philippe wrote:
Hi Phillippe,
> Thanks for your reply. I indeed already tried with a plpgsql function. But
> that's just my problem : if I call a function from within a view's rule,
> this function is not executed anymore with the same rights as a user had on
> the view. So if a user may access a view, but not the table behind, calling
> a function in the DO INSTEAD- clause will not execute the function with the
> proper (view) rights on the table ...
Oh, sure, you are right.
> (to all) Could anyone - (developers, eventually ?) explain me why the
> (security) context of a function call is not passed along when the function
> gets called from within a view ? I think this feature is for sure not
> superfluous, and I could consider having a look into the code to have this
> changed (but I think this is a VERY big pile of source codes I never ever
> looked at before, so this would take a lot of efforts ... for me)
That feature is added in current CVS I think. Maybe you can look at
current sources and backport the patch.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>)
"La verdad no siempre es bonita, pero el hambre de ella si"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Francisco Reyes | 2002-05-07 15:04:28 | Re: Error with vacuum |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2002-05-07 15:01:47 | Re: Subject: bool / vacuum full bug followup part 2 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kovacs Zoltan | 2002-05-07 15:57:05 | 7.1.3: pg_dump hierarchy problem |
Previous Message | mlw | 2002-05-07 14:58:29 | Re: OK, lets talk portability. |