Tom Lane wrote:
> Lieven Van Acker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, in fact, -at this point - I don't need setuid, because the
> > function current_adm() has to lookup the effective uid of the calling
> > user. The point is I want to filter the records depending on the uid
> > of the user
Lieven Van Acker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, in fact, -at this point - I don't need setuid, because the
> function current_adm() has to lookup the effective uid of the calling
> user. The point is I want to filter the records depending on the uid
> of the user calling the top-level view. S
Tom,
do I have to restore the original rewriteHandler.c? (before the first patch)
Lieven
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> Okay, the example you sent me off-list turns out to exhibit one bug
> and one not-yet-implemented feature. There is a bug in permissions
> checking for insert/update/delete rules (any references therein to
> NEW or OLD should be checked against the rule owner, not the calling
> user). A patch
Lieven Van Acker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> do I have to restore the original rewriteHandler.c? (before the first patch)
No, that patch is correct as far as it goes, and indeed necessary for
the second patch.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadc
Lieven Van Acker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess I was a bit to optimistic about the patch. It seems like the
> select permissions are solved, but update (inc. insert / delete)
> operations still fail with permission denied on the nested views.
Okay, the example you sent me off-list turns o
Lieven Van Acker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess I was a bit to optimistic about the patch. It seems like the
> select permissions are solved, but update (inc. insert / delete)
> operations still fail with permission denied on the nested views.
That's no help; I need an example.
