From: | Constantin Teodorescu <teo(at)flex(dot)ro> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Ed Loehr <eloehr(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Interfaces <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [INTERFACES] A question on triggers |
Date: | 2000-02-17 18:04:48 |
Message-ID: | 38AC3840.EB320B34@flex.ro |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >>>> Is there any chance to restrict the direct updates of any user to the
> >>>> "stock" table?
> >>>> So that the information in the "stock" table should be updated ONLY by
> >>>> those triggers?
>
> > But wouldn't be nice if PostgreSQL could offer a more elegant solution?
>
> Can't you do it with the normal GRANT/REVOKE access-control mechanism?
No. It didn't worked, that was my first idea!
> I'm pretty sure that for rules (views), the access rights for queries
> issued within the rule are checked based on the owner of the rule, not
> the user who invoked the rule. Triggers ought to work the same way,
> though I haven't tried it. So you could make the trigger function and
> the protected table owned by the same user, and then not grant write
> permission on that table to anyone else.
It seems it didn't work!
Constantin Teodorescu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mario Medina Nussbaum | 2000-02-17 21:54:52 | ODBC and PHP (on Linux) |
Previous Message | Guido Goldstein | 2000-02-17 17:31:55 | Re: [INTERFACES] link problems when inheriting from libpq++ |