> 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.
# 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
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1998-02-19 19:13:30|
|Subject: Re: AW: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c)|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1998-02-19 18:56:18|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c)|