Re: SQL:2011 application time

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Vik Fearing
Тема Re: SQL:2011 application time
Дата
Msg-id 1b972c50-1b0f-4753-8a33-b6d8cce8e598@postgresfriends.org
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: SQL:2011 application time  (Paul Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 12/2/23 19:11, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
> Thank you again for such thorough reviews!
> 
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 11:12 PM jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>  > UPDATE FOR PORTION OF, may need insert privilege. We also need to 
> document this.
>  > Similarly, we also need to apply the above logic to DELETE FOR 
> PORTION OF.
> 
> I don't think UPDATE/DELETE FOR PORTION OF is supposed to require INSERT 
> permission.
> 
> Notionally the INSERTs are just to preserve what was there already, not 
> to add new data.
> The idea is that a temporal table is equivalent to a table with one row 
> for every "instant",
> i.e. one row per microsecond/second/day/whatever-time-resolution. Of 
> course that would be too slow,
> so we use PERIODs/ranges instead, but the behavior should be the same. 
> Date's book has a good discussion of this idea.
> 
> I also checked the SQL:2011 draft standard, and there is a section 
> called Access Rules in Part 2: SQL/Foundation for UPDATE and DELETE 
> statements. Those sections say you need UPDATE/DELETE privileges, but 
> say nothing about needing INSERT privileges. That is on page 949 and 972 
> of the PDFs from the "SQL:20nn Working Draft Documents" link at [1]. If 
> someone has a copy of SQL:2016 maybe something was changed, but I would 
> be surprised

Nothing has changed here in SQL:2023 (or since).
-- 
Vik Fearing




В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Thomas Munro
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: postgres_fdw test timeouts
Следующее
От: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
Дата:
Сообщение: RE: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2