Re: [NOVICE] Question on TRUNCATE privleges

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  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