Re[2]: postgres not use table access permissions ?
От | Partyka Robert |
---|---|
Тема | Re[2]: postgres not use table access permissions ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0011031928090.22116-100000@saturn.alpha.pl обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: postgres not use table access permissions ? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re[2]: postgres not use table access permissions ?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Partyka Robert <bobson@saturn.alpha.pl> writes: > > #create user bobson with password '1' nocreatedb nocreateuser; > > CREATE > > #create table a (a int4); > > CREATE > > #revoke all on a from public; > > CHANGE > > and now from user bobson after conecting to test database: > > #insert into a values ('1'); > > INSERT 19104 1 > > > hmmm... looks like bug. Or I miss something? > > Oops. Strange though, this looks like it must be a very long-standing > bug: aclinsert3 thinks it can delete any zero-permissions item from an > ACL array, whereas aclcheck has a hard-wired assumption that the world > item is always there. Could we have missed this for this long? In 6.5.3 I've found other strange thing. When I give user INSERT, UPDATE permissions such user can do DELETE without DELETE permissions so in fact if I do # grant UPDATE, INSERT, SELECT on a to user1; it was treat as: # grant UPDATE, INSERT, DELETE, SELECT on a to user1; Today I want to test it on lastest CVS, but ... you know ;) regards Robert 'BoBsoN' Partyka
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: