On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 08:29:35 -0600,
"Walker, Jed S" <Jed_Walker(at)cable(dot)comcast(dot)com> wrote:
> correct way to do this I'd appreciate it.
> Since a sequence in postgres is actually a table, I realized that to pull a
> value off and have it increment you must be able to update the table. So I
> granted select and update on the sequence to the group, and now the user's
> in the group are able to use nextval().
> Is this definitely the correct way to handle this?
> The thing I really don't like about this is that now the user's in that
> group can perform setval() on the sequence! That's seem like a big risk.
> If someone can confirm my solution or give me the proper way to do this I
> would greatly appreciate it.
This has been discussed in the past. My memory is that people were amenable
to using INSERT to give access to nextval and UPDATE to give access to
setval. But I don't think anyone volunteered to do this.
In response to
pgsql-novice by date
|Next:||From: Van Ingen, Lane||Date: 2005-04-22 16:02:41|
|Subject: CHECK Constraints|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-04-22 15:03:33|
|Subject: Re: Authorized privileges when calling a procedure |