Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun feb 27 20:49:36 -0300 2012: > So (assuming Peter has read the spec correctly) I'm coming around to the > idea that the anonymous trigger functions created by this syntax ought > to be "SECURITY DEFINER table_owner".
I don't remember all the details, but I had a look at this in the standard about a year ago and the behavior it mandated wasn't trivially implemented using our existing mechanism. I mentioned the issue of a stack of user authorizations that is set up whenever a "routine" (function) is entered, during last year's PGCon developer's meeting. I intended to have a look at implementing that, but I haven't done anything yet. What was clear to me was that once I explained the problem, everyone seemed to agree that fixing it required more than some trivial syntax rework. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
