| From: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) |
|---|---|
| To: | maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian) |
| Cc: | scrappy(at)hub(dot)org, Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at, jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c) |
| Date: | 1998-02-19 19:45:46 |
| Message-ID: | m0y5buk-000BFRC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > > Just curious, but why don't the copy command fall under the same
> > > > grant/revoke restrictions in the first place? It sounds to me like we are
> > > > backing off of the problem instead of addressing it...
> > >
> > > grant/revoke works for copy.
> >
> > Ah, okay, so when we have it setup so that a view overrides the
> > 'grant' of a select, then we're fine?
>
> Yep, but can we do that in nine days, and be sure it is tested?
Don't think so - not really hard tested.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian
> maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us
>
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-02-19 19:46:08 | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c) |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1998-02-19 19:30:54 | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c) |