| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Row security violation error is misleading |
| Date: | 2015-04-08 14:07:41 |
| Message-ID: | 1043278572.1890469.1428502061756.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Re-using the SQLSTATE 44000 is a bit iffy too. We should
>> probably define something to differentiate this, like:
>>
>> 44P01 ROW SECURITY WRITE POLICY VIOLATION
>
> Yes, that sounds sensible.
I would be more inclined to use:
42501 ERRCODE_INSUFFICIENT_PRIVILEGE
I know this is used 173 other places where a user attempts to do
something they are not authorized to do, so you would not be able
to differentiate the specific cause based on SQLSTATE if this is
used -- but why don't we feel that way about the other 173 causes?
Why does this security violation require a separate SQLSTATE?
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-04-08 14:28:55 | Re: Sloppy SSPI error reporting code |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-04-08 14:02:35 | Re: Tuple visibility within a single XID |