| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, William ZHANG <uniware(at)zedware(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for SYNONYMS |
| Date: | 2006-03-09 18:17:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20060309181741.GJ4474@ns.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Stephan Szabo (sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com) wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Should a non-cascade drop fail or just implicitly drop the synonyms?
> > I'm not sure which way I feel about this... Users with only 'select'
> > permissions on a given object can't currently create objects which
> > depend on that object (such that dropping the object would then require
> > 'cascade'), can they?
>
> I think a user can create a view to a table they only have select on right
> now and that should prevent non-cascade drops as well.
Hmm, alright, fair enough.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2006-03-09 19:05:38 | Re: problem with large maintenance_work_mem settings and |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2006-03-09 18:07:15 | Re: Proposal for SYNONYMS |