| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #1150: grant options not properly checked |
| Date: | 2004-05-14 09:43:26 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0405141110490.8477@sablons.cri.ensmp.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Dear Peter,
> > I'd be the first to say that this aspect of the spec is a tad
> > bizarre. Does anyone want to argue for ignoring the spec and
> > implementing "saner" behavior? It's not like we are super close to
> > spec compliance for privileges otherwise ...
>
> My experience is that violating the spec in this area just leads to
> other problems. Does anyone know what IBM and Oracle do here?
> AFAICT, they're the ones writing the specs.
If we agree about the last interpretation of the Access Rule, that is on
the definition of an "identified" privilege (see my previous mail), I
finally think that the specs is ok and it just need to be implemented.
The bizarre would be more in the way that things are explained in the spec
than what is specified.
Have a nice day,
--
Fabien Coelho - coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-05-14 10:42:19 | Re: BUG #1154: no python interface anymore |
| Previous Message | Tomasz Lisica | 2004-05-14 08:17:05 | problem |