Hi all,
I'm one of the Google SoC's students for PostgreSQL. My project is
to implement column-level privilege in PG. Here is a description of my
project. Any and all help and/or comment is appreciated.
Table-level privilege subsystem in PG is now used like this:
GRANT { { SELECT | INSERT |
Golden Liu wrote:
3. Before evaluating a SQL command, check column-level privilege.
This is done AFTER checking table-level privilege. As I mentioned
before, if table-level privilege is granted, it's not necessary to
check column-level privilege.
Golden, this sounds good. I'm just a user.
It
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 14:54 schrieb Golden Liu:
Here is a plan of my project:
All of that should be pretty straightforward. But have you given any thoughts
to how you want to represent the column privileges in the parse tree and how
you want to process them in the rewriter? That will
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of August Zajonc
Sent: dinsdag 24 april 2007 18:34
To: Golden Liu
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Google SoC: column-level privilege subsystem
Golden Liu wrote:
3. Before evaluating
It sounds like table || column is the check, so table implies
all of columns. ie, revoking a column permission does nothing
unless TABLE permission is also revoked.
IF this will be implemented as suggested here, it will become
extremely
counter-intuitive. Its just like you have access to
Dear August
Thank you for your reply.
On 4/25/07, August Zajonc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Golden Liu wrote:
3. Before evaluating a SQL command, check column-level privilege.
This is done AFTER checking table-level privilege. As I mentioned
before, if table-level privilege is granted, it's
Robert Haas wrote:
My strongly opinion is that, REVOKE column-level priviledge should
revoke access to that column, in effect it should reduce the table-level
grant to column-level grants.
I think this causes problems when columns are added to the table. If
table X has columns A, B, C,
Robert Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
IF this will be implemented as suggested here, it will become
extremely counter-intuitive.
...
You could solve this by having explicit positive and negative ACLs, i.e.
your permissions for a particular column are:
Uh, wait a moment, people. The
Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
IF this will be implemented as suggested here, it will become
extremely counter-intuitive.
...
You could solve this by having explicit positive and negative ACLs, i.e.
your permissions for a particular column are:
