| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Triggers with DO functionality |
| Date: | 2012-02-24 19:40:31 |
| Message-ID: | 1330112431.32452.21.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On fre, 2012-02-24 at 14:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> (Thinks some more...) Actually, the point of SECURITY DEFINER on a
> trigger function is to run as somebody other than the table owner,
> to wit the function owner. And with an anonymous function there
> couldn't be any other owner. So I guess there is no need for this
> clause in this context.
You're right. The whole clause will be useless in this case.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-02-24 19:55:01 | Re: Triggers with DO functionality |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-24 19:27:36 | Re: Triggers with DO functionality |