Re: Fwd: [Patch Review] TRUNCATE Permission - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Fwd: [Patch Review] TRUNCATE Permission
Date
Msg-id 24940.1220835291@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fwd: [Patch Review] TRUNCATE Permission  ("Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Fwd: [Patch Review] TRUNCATE Permission  ("Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Updated patch attached, based on comments from Ryan Bradetich and Tom
> Lane, and sync'd to latest CVS version.

Applied with really pretty minor revisions --- this was a nice clean
patch.  Changes I can recall making:

* You missed one or two documentation references to DELETE privilege.

* You modified the privileges test to create another userid, but forgot
to clean up afterwards.

* LOCK TABLE requires UPDATE or DELETE privilege for locks stronger
than AccessShareLock.  I thought it would be inconsistent to not allow
TRUNCATE to satisfy this requirement too.

* Many of the information_schema views require some privilege on a table
to show details about the table.  Again, it seemed inconsistent to not
allow TRUNCATE privilege to satisfy this requirement.

* A couple of the information_schema views show available privileges on
tables by name.  It's a bit dubious whether we should show TRUNCATE in
them, since there is no such privilege bit in the SQL standard, but
after some reflection I concluded that functionality trumps a narrow
reading of the spec here.  We can revisit that if anyone wants to argue
for the other way, though.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Robert Haas"
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] allow has_table_privilege(..., 'usage') on sequences
Next
From: "Robert Haas"
Date:
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Patch Review] TRUNCATE Permission