[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3327?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Dag H. Wanvik updated DERBY-3327:
---------------------------------

    Description: 
The current LanguageConnectionContext keeps the user authorization identifier 
for an SQL session.
The lcc is shared context also for nested connections (opened from stored 
procedures).
So far, for roles, the current role has been stored in the lcc also. However, 
SQL requires that
authorization identifers be pushed on a "authorization stack" when calling a 
stored procedure, cf.
SQL 2003, vol 2, section 4.34.1.1 and 4.27.3 and 10.4 GR 5h and i.
This allows a caller to keep its current role after a call even if changed by 
the stored procedure.

This issue will implement the current role name part ("cell") of the 
authorization stack. 

The authorization stack will be implemented as part of the SQL session context.
The patch will also implement the pushing of the current unqualified schema 
name part of
the SQL session context, cf. 10.4 GR 5a (DERBY-1331).

  was:
The current LanguageConnectionContext keeps the user authorization identifier 
for an SQL session.
The lcc is shared context also for nested connections (opened from stored 
procedures).
So far, for roles, the current role has been stored in the lcc also. However, 
SQL requires that
authorization identifers be pushed on a "authorization stack" when calling a 
stored procedure, cf.
SQL 2003, vol 2, section 4.34.1.1 and 4.27.3 and 10.4 GR 5h and i.
This allows a caller to keep its current role after a call even if changed by 
the stored procedure.

This issue will implement the current role name part ("cell") of the 
authorization stack. 

The authorization stack will be implemented as of the SQL session context.
The patch will also implement the pushing of the current unqualified schema 
name part of
the SQL session context, cf. 10.4 GR 5a (DERBY-1331).

     Derby Info: [Patch Available, Existing Application Impact, Release Note 
Needed]  (was: [Release Note Needed, Existing Application Impact])

> SQL roles: Implement authorization stack (and SQL session context to hold it)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-3327
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3327
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Security, SQL
>            Reporter: Dag H. Wanvik
>            Assignee: Dag H. Wanvik
>             Fix For: 10.5.0.0
>
>         Attachments: DERBY-3327-1.diff, DERBY-3327-1.stat, DERBY-3327-2.diff, 
> DERBY-3327-2.stat, DERBY-3327-3.diff, DERBY-3327-3.stat, 
> DERBY-3327-4-full-b.diff, DERBY-3327-4-full-b.stat, DERBY-3327-4-full-c.diff, 
> DERBY-3327-4-full-c.stat, DERBY-3327-4-full-d.diff, DERBY-3327-4-full-d.stat, 
> DERBY-3327-4-full-e-10_4.diff, DERBY-3327-4-full-e-10_4.stat, 
> DERBY-3327-4-full-e.diff, DERBY-3327-4-full-e.stat, DERBY-3327-4-full.diff, 
> DERBY-3327-4-full.stat, releaseNote.html
>
>
> The current LanguageConnectionContext keeps the user authorization identifier 
> for an SQL session.
> The lcc is shared context also for nested connections (opened from stored 
> procedures).
> So far, for roles, the current role has been stored in the lcc also. However, 
> SQL requires that
> authorization identifers be pushed on a "authorization stack" when calling a 
> stored procedure, cf.
> SQL 2003, vol 2, section 4.34.1.1 and 4.27.3 and 10.4 GR 5h and i.
> This allows a caller to keep its current role after a call even if changed by 
> the stored procedure.
> This issue will implement the current role name part ("cell") of the 
> authorization stack. 
> The authorization stack will be implemented as part of the SQL session 
> context.
> The patch will also implement the pushing of the current unqualified schema 
> name part of
> the SQL session context, cf. 10.4 GR 5a (DERBY-1331).

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to