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.
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 |