Re: about truncate

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
Subject: Re: about truncate
Date: 2009-01-09 13:48:47
Message-ID: 496755BF.6000208@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 02:39:52PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> David Fetter wrote:
>>> +1 for adding recursion to GRANT/REVOKE :)
>> This area is under SQL standard control, so we can't really invent our
>> own behavior.
>>
>> Consider the following:
>>
>> CREATE TABLE persons (name, email);
>> CREATE TABLE employees (grade, salary) INHERITS (persons);
>>
>> GRANT SELECT ON persons TO allstaff; -- ???
>> GRANT SELECT ON employees TO managers;
>>
>> What you want in practice is that allstaff can read only those columns
>> of employees that come from the persons table. Both recursive and
>> nonrecursive GRANT do the wrong thing here.
>
> What *would* do the right thing here, or would anything?

I think we don't need GRANT to be recursive, but instead the permission
checks at runtime should allow

SELECT * FROM persons;

to succeed even if there are no permissions on "employees".

But only on the columns of "persons" and only if actually queried
through "persons".

Needs a more detailed analysis, but that is how I imagine it ought to work.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-01-09 13:58:54 Re: about truncate
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-01-09 13:10:53 Re: Buffer pool statistics in Explain Analyze