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.
> We do not resolve table names that way, why should we resolve function
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
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dann Corbit||Date: 2002-02-14 00:26:34|
|Subject: geo_decls.h oopsie...|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2002-02-14 00:12:57|
|Subject: Re: NAMEDATALEN Changes|