Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>>> Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 09:01 +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>>>>> How about changing the default behavior of SQLTables to list only
>>>>> SELECTable tables and add a bit to Extra Opts to list inaccessible
>>>>> tables also ?
>>>> I think this would risk breaking a lot of existing applications.
>>> Really ?
>>> I can hardly imagine the applications which would update/delete
>>> the rows whose contents couldn't be seen.
>> insert-only audit tables?
>> Yes, they should really be handled by server-side triggers, but I know
>> of at least a couple of apps running on PostgreSQL with psqlODBC that do
>> it client side.
> Hmm the apps list the tables using SQLTables() ?
I don't recall (and I don't have access to them any more to check), but
as we've had the current behaviour for the last 10 years or so, and
no-one has really complained until now, I don't think we should risk
changing the default - at least without checking for SELECT, UPDATE,
INSERT or DELETE rather than just SELECT.
In response to
pgsql-odbc by date
|Next:||From: Mark Cave-Ayland||Date: 2007-06-29 13:42:48|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for new pgsqlODBC feature- hiding tables inaccessible to the current user|
|Previous:||From: Hiroshi Inoue||Date: 2007-06-29 00:31:13|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for new pgsqlODBC feature - hiding tables inaccessible
to the current user|