Re: table partitioning and access privileges
От | Amit Langote |
---|---|
Тема | Re: table partitioning and access privileges |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+HiwqGCQLKizA+Voyw3GjRv0q8t9adS2YFGmw6GzAbRb+yazg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: table partitioning and access privileges (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: table partitioning and access privileges
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 4:26 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes: > > My customer reported me that the queries through a partitioned table > > ignore each partition's SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE privileges, > > on the other hand, only TRUNCATE privilege specified for each partition > > is applied. I'm not sure if this behavior is expected or not. But anyway > > is it better to document that? For example, > > > Access privileges may be defined and removed separately for each partition. > > But note that queries through a partitioned table ignore each partition's > > SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE privileges, and apply only TRUNCATE one. > > I believe it's intentional that we only check access privileges on > the table explicitly named in the query. So I'd say SELECT etc > are doing the right thing, and if TRUNCATE isn't in step with them > that's a bug to fix, not something to document. I tend to agree that TRUNCATE's permission model for inheritance should be consistent with that for the other commands. How about the attached patch toward that end? Thanks, Amit
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: