Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ian Barwick <barwick(at)gmx(dot)de>
Cc: "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers
Date: 2002-05-02 22:05:07
Message-ID: 18643.1020377107@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces

Ian Barwick <barwick(at)gmx(dot)de> writes:
> i.e. user "joe" can see which objects exist in schema "foo2", even though
> he has no USAGE privilege. (Is this behaviour intended?)

It's open for debate I suppose. Historically we have not worried about
preventing people from looking into the system tables, except for cases
such as pg_statistic where this might expose actual user data.

AFAICS we could only prevent this by making selective views on the
system tables and then prohibiting ordinary users from accessing the
underlying tables directly. I'm not in a big hurry to do that myself,
if only for backward-compatibility reasons.

We still do have the option of separate databases, and I'd be inclined
to tell people to use those if they want airtight separation between
users.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark kirkwood 2002-05-02 22:09:49 Re: PostgreSQL mission statement?
Previous Message Jason Earl 2002-05-02 22:01:56 Re: PostgreSQL mission statement?

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shawn Stephens - Q Data KZN 2002-05-03 12:39:20 libpq interface problem.
Previous Message Jeffrey W. Baker 2002-05-02 15:43:23 Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers