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

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: AW: AW: AW: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.30.0106251811150.724-100000@peter.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: AW: AW: AW: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> I also don't see any privilege of this type in SQL92 (which does have
> the concept of setuid functions, in the form of modules).

SQL99 has setuid functions in the form of setuid functions, with a syntax
like CREATE FUNCTION .... SECURITY { INVOKER | DEFINER } (too lazy to look
up the details).  There were some peculiar differences IIRC, such as
trigger functions executing with the permission of the trigger creator
(which is yet different).

Modules are more like "packages", AFAICT.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joe Conway"
Date:
Subject: Fw: AW: Re: [SQL] behavior of ' = NULL' vs. MySQL vs. Stand ards
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/bin/initdb initdb.sh