On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:26:22AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Saturday, December 03, 2011 01:09:48 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Excerpts from Andres Freund's message of vie dic 02 19:09:47 -0300 2011:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > There is also the point about how permission checks on the actual
> > > commands (in comparison of modifying command triggers) and such are
> > > handled:
> > >
> > > BEFORE and INSTEAD will currently be called independently of the fact
> > > whether the user is actually allowed to do said action (which is
> > > inconsistent with data triggers) and indepentent of whether the object
> > > they concern exists.
> > >
> > > I wonder if anybody considers that a problem?
> >
> > Hmm, we currently even have a patch (or is it already committed?) to
> > avoid locking objects before we know the user has permission on the
> > object. Getting to the point of calling the trigger would surely be
> > even worse.
> Well, calling the trigger won't allow them to lock the object. It doesn't even
> confirm the existance of the table.
>
didn't I see a discussion in passing about the possibility of using these command
triggers to implement some aspects of se-pgsql? In that case, you'd need the above
behavior.
Ross
--
Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D. reedstrm@rice.edu
Systems Engineer & Admin, Research Scientist phone: 713-348-6166
Connexions http://cnx.org fax: 713-348-3665
Rice University MS-375, Houston, TX 77005
GPG Key fingerprint = F023 82C8 9B0E 2CC6 0D8E F888 D3AE 810E 88F0 BEDE
