| From: | yazicivo(at)ttmail(dot)com (Volkan =?utf-8?B?WWF6xLFjxLE=?=) |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Permission Problem for DELETE |
| Date: | 2008-05-27 18:05:07 |
| Message-ID: | 878wxvhbcc.fsf@alamut.mobiliz.com.tr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Well, you tested wrong then. It works as expected for me, which is
> that you need SELECT if the query involves fetching any existing
> column value:
Pff... Sorry for the noise. (I created example table under a differrent
schema than "public" to be able to test effects of schema priviliges to
INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE commands, but I somehow forgot that detail later.)
I updated the doc patch.
Regards.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| grant-awd-requires-r.patch | text/x-diff | 949 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin | 2008-05-27 19:57:45 | Re: New MS patent: sounds like PG db rules |
| Previous Message | J. Manuel Velasco | 2008-05-27 18:01:27 | HELP with a query with blank fields |