From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Novice <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [NOVICE] Question on TRUNCATE privleges |
Date: | 2005-02-24 22:21:29 |
Message-ID: | 200502242221.j1OMLTK24273@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-novice |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Uh, that seems like it adds extra complexity just for this single case.
>
> Yeah. I've dropped the idea personally -- the suggestion that the table
> owner can provide a SECURITY DEFINER procedure to do the TRUNCATE if he
> wants to allow others to do it seems to me to cover the problem.
>
> > Why don't we allow TRUNCATE by non-owners only if no triggers are
> > defined, and if they are defined, we throw an error and mention it is
> > because triggers/contraints exist?
>
> I don't think we should put weird special cases in the rights checking
> to allow this -- that's usually a recipe for introducing unintended
> security holes.
Yea, good point.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-02-24 22:27:25 | Re: [PATCHES] [pgsql-hackers-win32] Repleacement for src/port/snprintf.c |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-24 22:17:59 | Re: Some download statistics |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Keith Worthington | 2005-02-24 22:28:08 | Re: [NOVICE] Question on TRUNCATE privleges |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-24 22:15:42 | Re: [NOVICE] Question on TRUNCATE privleges |