-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 the
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 doe
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.
"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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane asked:
> Superusers can access anything they want to. What's your point?
> The spec says "accessible" ...
Not trying to lecture you Tom :), just posting my argument
here for others.
Temp tables are "special" because the user does not kn
"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 temporar
-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
"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 automat
-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
[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
10 matches
Mail list logo
