From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Ryan Bradetich" <rbradetich(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fwd: [Patch Review] TRUNCATE Permission |
Date: | 2008-09-08 00:54:51 |
Message-ID: | 24940.1220835291@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Updated patch attached, based on comments from Ryan Bradetich and Tom
> Lane, and sync'd to latest CVS version.
Applied with really pretty minor revisions --- this was a nice clean
patch. Changes I can recall making:
* You missed one or two documentation references to DELETE privilege.
* You modified the privileges test to create another userid, but forgot
to clean up afterwards.
* LOCK TABLE requires UPDATE or DELETE privilege for locks stronger
than AccessShareLock. I thought it would be inconsistent to not allow
TRUNCATE to satisfy this requirement too.
* Many of the information_schema views require some privilege on a table
to show details about the table. Again, it seemed inconsistent to not
allow TRUNCATE privilege to satisfy this requirement.
* A couple of the information_schema views show available privileges on
tables by name. It's a bit dubious whether we should show TRUNCATE in
them, since there is no such privilege bit in the SQL standard, but
after some reflection I concluded that functionality trumps a narrow
reading of the spec here. We can revisit that if anyone wants to argue
for the other way, though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2008-09-08 01:36:40 | Re: Fwd: [Patch Review] TRUNCATE Permission |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2008-09-08 00:22:29 | Re: [PATCH] allow has_table_privilege(..., 'usage') on sequences |