Re: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Mark Volpe <volpe(dot)mark(at)epa(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions
Date: 2001-06-24 00:47:28
Message-ID: 9286.993343648@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> The term for user identity is "authorization", so I would
> call these commands

> SET AUTHORIZATION { INVOKER | DEFINER }

I like that better, too.

Overall, the only objection I can see to doing things this way is that
we have to do it over again for each function language (eg, adding such
a thing to SQL functions is doable, but much more tedious than for
plpgsql). But it seems more flexible than the pg_proc-attribute
approach.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rod Taylor 2001-06-24 01:18:01 Postgres to Dia UML
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-06-23 23:50:31 Re: pgsql/src/bin/initdb initdb.sh