Re: AW: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c)

From: jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck)
To: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org (The Hermit Hacker)
Cc: maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at, jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org
Subject: Re: AW: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c)
Date: 1998-02-19 19:02:23
Message-ID: m0y5bEm-000BFRC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Just curious, but why don't the copy command fall under the same
> grant/revoke restrictions in the first place? It sounds to me like we are
> backing off of the problem instead of addressing it...
>
> The problem being that it appears that 'copy' overrides/ignores
> the rewrite rules, which kind of invalidates having them, doesn't it?
> What would it take to have copy follow them as select does?

Copy does a heap scan by itself. Doesn't care about rules.
Instead copy must do a SELECT internal. Don't know if that
is really what copy should do.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1998-02-19 19:13:30 Re: AW: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1998-02-19 18:56:18 Re: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c)