Re: Question about psql meta-command with schema option doesn't use visibilityrule

2021-11-07 Thread Tatsuro Yamada
Hi David, I have a question that is a specification of permission check (visibilityrule) for psql meta-command with schema option. Visibility means search_path, not permission.  If s_a is not in the search_paths it objects are not visible unqualified but can be seen (catalog) when

Re: Question about psql meta-command with schema option doesn't use visibilityrule

2021-11-07 Thread David G. Johnston
On Sunday, November 7, 2021, Tatsuro Yamada wrote: > > I have a question that is a specification of permission check > (visibilityrule) for psql meta-command with schema option. > > From the above results, I expected "\dX s_a.*" doesn't show any info > as same as "\dX". but info is displayed.

Re: Question about psql meta-command with schema option doesn't use visibilityrule

2021-11-07 Thread David G. Johnston
On Sunday, November 7, 2021, Tatsuro Yamada wrote: > > According to the source code [1], there is no check if a schema > option is added. As a result, a role that is not granted can see > other roles' object names. > We might say it's okay because it's a name, not contents (data), > but It seems

Question about psql meta-command with schema option doesn't use visibilityrule

2021-11-07 Thread Tatsuro Yamada
Hi, I have a question that is a specification of permission check (visibilityrule) for psql meta-command with schema option. According to the source code [1], there is no check if a schema option is added. As a result, a role that is not granted can see other roles' object names. We might say