On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Tony Marston wrote: > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stephan Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 08 October 2005 16:44 > > To: Tony Marston > > Subject: RE: [BUGS] BUG #1937: Parts of information_schema > > only accessible to owner > > > > > > On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Tony Marston wrote: > > > > > I have searched through the SQL 2003 standard and can find no such > > > restriction. In the volume titled "Information and > > Definition Schemas > > > (SQL/Schemata)" in section 5.20 (INORMATON_SCHEMA.COLUMNS view) it > > > states the following under the heading "Function": > > > > > > "Identify the columns of tables defined in this catalog that are > > > accessible to a given user or role." > > > > > > Note there that it does not say that the user must be the > > owner, but > > > that the user is allowed to access the table (i.e. has access > > > privileges). > > > > > > I take this to mean (as any reasonable person would) that if a user > > > has been granted the privilges to access an object then > > that same user > > > can view all the information on that object which is defined within > > > the information schema. > > > > > > Unless you can provide a direct quote from the SQL standard which > > > contradicts this I strongly suggest that you revise your opinion. > > > > What I gave was *directly* part of the definition of the view from the > > standard: > > > > > > CASE WHEN EXISTS ( SELECT * > > > > FROM DEFINITION_SCHEMA.SCHEMATA AS S > > > > WHERE ( TABLE_CATALOG, TABLE_SCHEMA ) > > > > = (S.CATALOG_NAME, S.SCHEMA_NAME ) > > > > AND SCHEMA_OWNER = USER ) > > > > THEN COLUMN_DEFAULT > > > > ELSE NULL > > > > END AS COLUMN_DEFAULT, > > > > I think any "reasonable person" would read the definition > > portion above from that view and interpret that as give the > > column default if the table the the column is in came from a > > schema that is owned by USER otherwise give NULL. > > > > I disagree. The function description in the SQL 1999 standard says "Identify > the columns of tables defined in this catalog that are accessible to a given > user." It is clear that the actual code sample given does not conform to > this description, so I would argue that the code is wrong and the > description is right. Any reasonable person would assume that the code > sample would conform to the description. After all, the description does not > say "except for those items where the user must also be the owner".
If there's two items: "Function" with a description and "Definition" with a definition, I think it's fairly ignorant to read the former as overriding the latter. The latter *is* the definition. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
