> "Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com> writes:
> > 1. Am I totally off my rocker for suggesting users without 'execute'
> > priv. should not be able to view procedure source.
>
> 1. I don't particularly buy that, no. Why draw the line at seeing
> source code? The mere name and argument list might be considered
> 'sensitive' information.
Not a big deal considering where the line gets drawn, but this is moot
considering your next point. However, I'm a little unclear about where
you stand on the relative merit (whatever the implementation) of hiding
at the very least prosrc from non-priv users.
> 2. We haven't had a policy of hiding schema information in the past,
and
> I don't think it's the sort of thing that can usefully be bolted on
> piecemeal.
Well, at least one system catalog is a view + function (pg_locks),
albeit for completely different reasons.
> 3. The people who ask for this sort of thing frequently don't want
those
> with execute permission to look at the source, either, so your
proposed
> solution really isn't going to satisfy anybody.
It wouldn't? Your points #1 and #3 could be addressed by configuring
the view one way or another...so ISTM you are arguing for the
flexibility of a view, not against...
If the view approach is out, are there any other alternatives to
consider? Adding a new priv. for functions to GRANT seems to also pull
pg_proc towards a view.
Merlin
