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) #
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) |