Hey Daniel, Again link to oracle.com...
During this thread I believe that synonyms gives nothing except confusion and mess. 2010/12/7 Daniel Verite <dan...@manitou-mail.org> > Tom Lane wrote: > > > Taken at face value from a Postgres perspective, these statements seem > > to imply that different ownership and permissions apply to a synonym > > than to its referenced object; which seems like a completely horrid idea > > from a security standpoint. But maybe they are only trying to say that > > a synonym hides which *schema* the referenced object is in, and that is > > tantamount to hiding the owner if you have the mindset that owner == > > schema. Can anyone elucidate on just what is behind those statements? > > From > > http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/network.111/b28531/authorization > .htm#i1009141<http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/network.111/b28531/authorization%0A.htm#i1009141> > > [quote] > A schema object and its synonym are equivalent with respect to privileges. > That is, the object privileges granted on a table, view, sequence, > procedure, > function, or package apply whether referencing the base object by name or > by > using a synonym. > [/quote] > > ... > > [quote] > If you grant object privileges on a table, view, sequence, procedure, > function, or package by referring to the object through a synonym for the > object, then the effect is the same as if no synonym were used. > [/quote] > > Best regards, > -- > Daniel > PostgreSQL-powered mail user agent and storage: > http://www.manitou-mail.org > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > -- // Dmitriy.
