> Taken at face value from a Postgres perspective, these statements seem > to imply that different ownership and permissions apply to a synonym > than to its referenced object; which seems like a completely horrid idea > from a security standpoint. But maybe they are only trying to say that > a synonym hides which *schema* the referenced object is in, and that is > tantamount to hiding the owner if you have the mindset that owner == > schema. Can anyone elucidate on just what is behind those statements?
[quote] A schema object and its synonym are equivalent with respect to privileges. That is, the object privileges granted on a table, view, sequence, procedure, function, or package apply whether referencing the base object by name or by using a synonym. [/quote]
...
[quote] If you grant object privileges on a table, view, sequence, procedure, function, or package by referring to the object through a synonym for the object, then the effect is the same as if no synonym were used. [/quote]
