| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: When and where to check for function permissions | 
| Date: | 2002-02-14 00:26:22 | 
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0202131922250.683-100000@peter.localdomain | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Tom Lane writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Now I remembered the way SQL99 specifies
> > function resolution, which has the permission check before the function
> > resolution begins.
>
> That may be what the spec says, but I think the spec is completely
> brain-dead in this regard and should be ignored.
Why?
> We do not resolve table names that way, why should we resolve function
> names?
We do not resolve table names at all.
> Even more to the point, what happens when someone adds or revokes
> privileges that would affect already-planned queries?
The query plans are invalidated.
Note:  I'm not convinced of this idea either.  But proclaiming it
brain-dead isn't going to push me either way.  You could say Unix shells
are brain-dead, too, because they do the same thing.
-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2002-02-14 00:26:34 | geo_decls.h oopsie... | 
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-02-14 00:12:57 | Re: NAMEDATALEN Changes |