Re: Privileges for INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SCHEMATA (was Re: [DOCS] Small clarification in "34.41. schemata") - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Casey Allen Shobe
Subject Re: Privileges for INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SCHEMATA (was Re: [DOCS] Small clarification in "34.41. schemata")
Date
Msg-id CAFmVg3ietJ_drX2QgTVX3Ba6bMpbBErx0YJ+DEEztF6hWC-_DA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Privileges for INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SCHEMATA (was Re: [DOCS] Small clarification in "34.41. schemata")  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Re: Privileges for INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SCHEMATA (was Re: [DOCS] Small clarification in "34.41. schemata")  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
However, it seems to me that this behavior is actually wrong for our
purposes, as it represents a too-literal reading of the spec.  The SQL
standard has no concept of privileges on schemas, only ownership.
We do have privileges on schemas, so it seems to me that the consistent
thing would be for this view to show any schema that you either own or
have some privilege on.
 
IMHO, schemata should follow the standard as it does today.  Other platforms have privileges on schemas as well, and this sort of thing seems to fall into the same bucket as other platform compatibilities outside the scope of what the standard thinks about, which means you use pg_catalog to access that information rather than information_schema, which should be expected to work consistently on all platforms that implement it.
 
--
Casey Allen Shobe
casey@shobe.info


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: erroneous restore into pg_catalog schema
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles