On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 16:54 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 09:01 +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >>
> >>> How about changing the default behavior of SQLTables to list only
> >>> SELECTable tables and add a bit to Extra Opts to list inaccessible
> >>> tables also ?
> >> I think this would risk breaking a lot of existing applications.
> >
> > Really ?
> > I can hardly imagine the applications which would update/delete
> > the rows whose contents couldn't be seen.
>
> insert-only audit tables?
>
> Yes, they should really be handled by server-side triggers, but I know
> of at least a couple of apps running on PostgreSQL with psqlODBC that do
> it client side.
>
> Regards, Dave
Hi guys,
The use-case I was thinking of was SQL builder tools that allow you to
choose table names from the SQLTables list - even if you don't want to
perform a SELECT, you may still want to be able to include the table in
your query for an INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE.
Where does that leave the status of the patch? Is there any way at all
of getting the feature included with a GUI tickbox to select/deselect
it, or would the patch be rejected regardless?
Kind regards,
Mark.
