Re: Column-Level Privileges

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Column-Level Privileges
Date: 2009-01-20 19:08:32
Message-ID: 20090120190832.GC32428@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> ... btw, what is the reasoning behind the special cases for SELECT FOR
> UPDATE in execMain.c?

Basically, because the original logic allowed SELECT-FOR-UPDATE if you
only had SELECT rights, which wasn't right.

> If there actually is a need to treat SELECT FOR UPDATE specially, then
> this code is quite wrong because it will also fire on a plain UPDATE
> (assuming the UPDATE reads any existing column values, which it usually
> would). Offhand though I don't see why we can't just use code that is
> symmetric with the SELECT case: if requiredPerms includes UPDATE but
> there are no columns called out for UPDATE, then allow it if we have
> UPDATE on any column.

I agree, this makes alot more sense to me.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2009-01-20 19:31:03 Re: Hot standby, RestoreBkpBlocks and cleanup locks
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2009-01-20 19:01:58 Re: Hot standby, RestoreBkpBlocks and cleanup locks