Re: [PATCHES] Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal

From: "Joe Conway" <joe(at)conway-family(dot)com>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal
Date: 2001-06-06 21:45:57
Message-ID: 005e01c0eed2$1248d600$dad410ac@jecw2k1
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

> where the semantics are that an entire tuple of the relation "rel" is
> passed to the function. This doesn't really gain us anything for the
> problem at hand (and we'll quite likely have to give it up anyway when
> we implement schemas, since SQL has very different ideas about what
> a.b.c means than our current parser does).
>

I wasn't quite sure if there are changes I can/should make to
has_table_privilege based on this discussion. Is there any action for me on
this (other than finishing the regression test and creating documentation
patches)?

Thanks,

-- Joe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Pilosov 2001-06-06 21:58:52 Re: [HACKERS] something smells bad
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-06-06 21:26:44 Re: Idea: quicker abort after loss of client connection

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-06-06 22:10:00 Re: Re: [PATCHES] Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-06-06 21:15:40 Finalize large object patch