Tom Lane writes:
> OK. BTW, what is the status of the changeover you proposed re using
> OIDs instead of int4 userids as the unique identifiers for users?
Because of the pg_dumpall thing that had to be postponed for another
release, otherwise the users would be associated to the wrong groups on
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> What I'm thinking about doing is eliminating the "skipAcl" RTE field
>> and instead adding an Oid field named something like "checkAclAs".
>> The semantics of this field would be "if zero, check access permissions
>> for this table
Philip Warner writes:
> Didn't Peter & Jan have a rewrite of the permissions system in the pipeline
> - or has that disappeared? What Jan was proposing was rather more
> substantial than just the setuid stuff, I *think*.
If I had known that we wouldn't beta until October I probably would have
st
Tom Lane writes:
> What I'm thinking about doing is eliminating the "skipAcl" RTE field
> and instead adding an Oid field named something like "checkAclAs".
> The semantics of this field would be "if zero, check access permissions
> for this table using the current effective userID; but if not ze
At 10:54 26/09/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>Comments? Is this a general enough mechanism, and does it fit well
>with the various setUID tricks that people are thinking about?
>
Didn't Peter & Jan have a rewrite of the permissions system in the pipeline
- or has that disappeared? What Jan was pro
