Re: information_schema vs temp tables (was Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sequences were not being shown due to the use of lowercase `s`)

2006-09-18 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tom Lane wrote: I've done the above and now withdraw my complaints about this patch. Excellent, thank you. I notice however that the patch seems to have touched only about half a dozen of the information_schema views ... shouldn't more of them

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sequences were not being shown due to the use of lowercase 's'

2006-09-15 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: What became of my objection that the test should be on USAGE privilege for the containing schema instead? Was this addressed? Yes, we arrived at this: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2006-09/msg00252.php which does what

Re: information_schema vs temp tables (was Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sequences were not being shown due to the use of lowercase `s`)

2006-09-14 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: If you're really intent on making it work this way, my vote is to expose namespace.c's isOtherTempNamespace() as a SQL-callable function, and add a test on that to the info-schema views, rather than relying on is_visible or explicit knowledge of the temp-schema naming convention.

information_schema vs temp tables (was Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sequences were not being shown due to the use of lowercase `s`)

2006-09-13 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... I can't think of a use case where a user would not want to append a is_visible clause to the query above. That or start tracking which pg_temp_ schema belongs to whom. Well, I'm still having a problem with this, because it seems like a pretty

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sequences were not being shown due to the use of lowercase `s`

2006-09-06 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tom Lane asked: Superusers can access anything they want to. What's your point? The spec says accessible ... disclaimer Not trying to lecture you Tom :), just posting my argument here for others. /disclaimer Temp tables are special because the

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sequences were not being shown due to the use of lowercase 's'

2006-09-04 Thread Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) writes: Sequences were not being shown due to the use of lowercase 's' instead of 'S', and the views were not checking for table visibility with regards to temporary tables and sequences. What became of my objection that the test should be on USAGE privilege

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sequences were not being shown due to the use of lowercase `s`

2006-09-04 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I wrote: Sequences were not being shown due to the use of lowercase 's' instead of 'S', and the views were not checking for table visibility with regards to temporary tables and sequences. Tom Lane replied: What became of my objection that the

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sequences were not being shown due to the use of lowercase `s`

2006-09-04 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane replied: What became of my objection that the test should be on USAGE privilege for the containing schema instead? I took a stab at implementing this, but what exactly would we check? Looks like all the temp tables have automatic usage

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sequences were not being shown due to the use of lowercase `s`

2006-09-04 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 SELECT *,has_schema_privilege(oid,'USAGE') FROM pg_namespace; Well, if you test it as a superuser, it's going to return TRUE every time. Exactly. So I'm not seeing how we can use USAGE as a reliable test for the case where a temporary table was

Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sequences were not being shown due to the use of lowercase `s`

2006-09-04 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: SELECT *,has_schema_privilege(oid,'USAGE') FROM pg_namespace; Well, if you test it as a superuser, it's going to return TRUE every time. Exactly. So I'm not seeing how we can use USAGE as a reliable test for the case where a temporary table was