> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> [mailto:owner-pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org]On Behalf Of
> Constantin Teodorescu
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > > But wouldn't be nice if PostgreSQL could offer a more elegant
> > 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!
Hmm,it seems to work for views(rules) but it doesn't work for functions.
It should work for stored procedures,shouldn't it ?
In response to
pgsql-interfaces by date
|Next:||From: Dave Del Signore||Date: 2000-02-19 19:25:08|
|Subject: JDBC - Numeric & Decimal handling in 6.5.3?|
|Previous:||From: Martin Kresse||Date: 2000-02-18 23:31:05|
|Subject: RE: [INTERFACES] NOTIFY/LISTEN with JDBC|