| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com |
| Cc: | scrappy(at)hub(dot)org, Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c) |
| Date: | 1998-02-19 19:47:33 |
| Message-ID: | 199802191947.OAA11984@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 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...
> > > >
> > > > grant/revoke works for copy.
> > >
> > > Ah, okay, so when we have it setup so that a view overrides the
> > > 'grant' of a select, then we're fine?
> >
> > Yep, but can we do that in nine days, and be sure it is tested?
>
> Don't think so - not really hard tested.
If you think you can get it in with light testing by the beta people,
Marc might bite on it.
--
Bruce Momjian
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Keith Parks | 1998-02-19 19:52:57 | RE: New ecgp code problem. |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-02-19 19:46:08 | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c) |