Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PATCHES] Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal

From: "Joe Conway" <joe(at)conway-family(dot)com>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal
Date: 2001-06-06 21:45:57
Message-ID: 005e01c0eed2$1248d600$dad410ac@jecw2k1 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
> where the semantics are that an entire tuple of the relation "rel" is
> passed to the function.  This doesn't really gain us anything for the
> problem at hand (and we'll quite likely have to give it up anyway when
> we implement schemas, since SQL has very different ideas about what
> a.b.c means than our current parser does).
>

I wasn't quite sure if there are changes I can/should make to
has_table_privilege based on this discussion. Is there any action for me on
this (other than finishing the regression test and creating documentation
patches)?

Thanks,

-- Joe


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alex PilosovDate: 2001-06-06 21:58:52
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] something smells bad
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-06 21:26:44
Subject: Re: Idea: quicker abort after loss of client connection

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-06 22:10:00
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCHES] Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-06-06 21:15:40
Subject: Finalize large object patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group