Re: Problem with function permission test in a view

From: "Gaetano Mendola" <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Problem with function permission test in a view
Date: 2003-09-14 00:07:10
Message-ID: 000001c37a55$87559e90$e907c9d9@mm.eutelsat.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > Someone asked me a question about view and function permissions. I
> > > assumed all object access done by a view would be based on the
> > > permissions on the view, and not the permissions of the objects.
> >
> > Table references are checked according to the owner of the view, but use
> > in a view does not change the execution context for function or operator
> > calls. This is how it's always been done.
> >
> > > Is this a bug?
> >
> > Changing it would be a major definitional change (and a pretty major
> > implementation change too). It might be better, but please don't
> > pre-judge the issue by labeling it a bug.
>
> Well, it sure sounds like a bug. What logic is there that table access
> use the view permissions, but not function access? Could we just use
> SECURITY DEFINER for function calls in views?

I already had this problem, look here:

http://groups.google.it/groups?q=postgres+security+definer+gaetano+mendola&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=b711hu%241g25%241%40news.hub.org&rnum=1

and I had no reply :-(

Regards
Gaetano Mendola

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Schultz 2003-09-14 05:14:42 Re: memory allocation and powers of two
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-09-13 22:30:14 Re: memory allocation and powers of two