Re: WITH CHECK and Column-Level Privileges
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WITH CHECK and Column-Level Privileges |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20150112221640.GM3062@tamriel.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WITH CHECK and Column-Level Privileges (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: WITH CHECK and Column-Level Privileges
Re: WITH CHECK and Column-Level Privileges Re: WITH CHECK and Column-Level Privileges |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dean, Robert, * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com) wrote: > On 29 October 2014 13:04, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > > * Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > >> > suggestions. If the user does not have table-level SELECT rights, > >> > they'll see for the "Failing row contains" case, they'll get: > >> > > >> > Failing row contains (col1, col2, col3) = (1, 2, 3). > >> > > >> > Or, if they have no access to any columns: > >> > > >> > Failing row contains () = () > >> > >> I haven't looked at the code, but that sounds nice, except that if > >> they have no access to any columns, I'd leave the message out > >> altogether instead of emitting it with no useful content. > > > > Alright, I can change things around to make that happen without too much > > trouble. > > Yes, skim-reading the patch, it looks like a good approach to me, and > also +1 for not emitting anything if no values are visible. Alright, here's an updated patch which doesn't return any detail if no values are visible or if only a partial key is visible. Please take a look. I'm not thrilled with simply returning an empty string and then checking that for BuildIndexValueDescription and ExecBuildSlotValueDescription, but I figured we might have other users of BuildIndexValueDescription and I wasn't seeing a particularly better solution. Suggestions welcome, of course. Thanks! Stephen
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: