Re: Do we want SYNONYMS?

Hey Daniel,

Again link to oracle.com...

During this thread I believe that synonyms gives nothing
except confusion and mess.

2010/12/7 Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>

> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Taken at face value from a Postgres perspective, these statements seem
> > to imply that different ownership and permissions apply to a synonym
> > than to its referenced object; which seems like a completely horrid idea
> > from a security standpoint. But maybe they are only trying to say that
> > a synonym hides which *schema* the referenced object is in, and that is
> > tantamount to hiding the owner if you have the mindset that owner ==
> > schema. Can anyone elucidate on just what is behind those statements?
>
> From
>
> http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/network.111/b28531/authorization
> .htm#i1009141<http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/network.111/b28531/authorization%0A.htm#i1009141>
>
> [quote]
> A schema object and its synonym are equivalent with respect to privileges.
> That is, the object privileges granted on a table, view, sequence,
> procedure,
> function, or package apply whether referencing the base object by name or
> by
> using a synonym.
> [/quote]
>
> ...
>
> [quote]
> If you grant object privileges on a table, view, sequence, procedure,
> function, or package by referring to the object through a synonym for the
> object, then the effect is the same as if no synonym were used.
> [/quote]
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Daniel
> PostgreSQL-powered mail user agent and storage:
> http://www.manitou-mail.org
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>

--
// Dmitriy.