Re: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions
Date
Msg-id 9286.993343648@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions
Re: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> The term for user identity is "authorization", so I would
> call these commands

>   SET AUTHORIZATION { INVOKER | DEFINER }

I like that better, too.

Overall, the only objection I can see to doing things this way is that
we have to do it over again for each function language (eg, adding such
a thing to SQL functions is doable, but much more tedious than for
plpgsql).  But it seems more flexible than the pg_proc-attribute
approach.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] by request: base64 for bytea
Next
From: Marko Kreen
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] by request: base64 for bytea