On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 23:47 +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Recently added boolean options are defined as some bits in Extra Opts.
> Is it OK to define the option as a bit in Extra Opts ?
Inoue-san,
Thanks for your feedback. I've had a look at the code for Extra Options
(and thought a bit more about it), and I'd prefer to keep the option as
a separate tick-box if possible. My reason for this is that the people
who want this feature are the people who want to get rid of extra tables
they see over ODBC. Generally these people have already found the "Hide
System Tables" option but can't work out how to remove the extra tables,
so for me it makes sense to put the two options close to each other.
Also, for support purposes, it would be much easier to explain a tick
box over the phone rather than get them to read out the "Extra Options",
calculate the new value and then type it back in as a hex value!
I wonder if anyone else who would use this option has any other feelings
on this?
> >> When this box is ticked, only tables on which the user
> >> has one of SELECT, INSERT, DELETE or UPDATE privileges will appear in
> >> the table list for the given DSN.
>
> Isn't it sufficient to chack SELECT privilege only ?
Possibly. I wasn't sure on the exact semantics of ODBC, but considered
that for example, if you have DELETE privilege on a table, you would
still expect to see it in a table listing even if you couldn't see the
contents itself. This is the same behaviour psqlODBC exhibits without
the patch if your user doesn't have permissions on the tables in the
ODBC listing.
Kind regards,
Mark.
