Re: Fwd: [Patch Review] TRUNCATE Permission
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fwd: [Patch Review] TRUNCATE Permission |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 603c8f070809071836w15cbacf6q314cdf78cddb4c00@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Fwd: [Patch Review] TRUNCATE Permission (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Applied with really pretty minor revisions --- this was a nice clean > patch. Changes I can recall making: Woo-hoo, my first patch. Thanks for the cleanup. ...Robert > * You missed one or two documentation references to DELETE privilege. > > * You modified the privileges test to create another userid, but forgot > to clean up afterwards. > > * LOCK TABLE requires UPDATE or DELETE privilege for locks stronger > than AccessShareLock. I thought it would be inconsistent to not allow > TRUNCATE to satisfy this requirement too. > > * Many of the information_schema views require some privilege on a table > to show details about the table. Again, it seemed inconsistent to not > allow TRUNCATE privilege to satisfy this requirement. > > * A couple of the information_schema views show available privileges on > tables by name. It's a bit dubious whether we should show TRUNCATE in > them, since there is no such privilege bit in the SQL standard, but > after some reflection I concluded that functionality trumps a narrow > reading of the spec here. We can revisit that if anyone wants to argue > for the other way, though. > > regards, tom lane >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: