Re: [HACKERS] Solution for RI permission problem

2000-10-04 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Jan Wieck wrote: > Stephan Szabo wrote: > > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > > > Stephan Szabo writes: > > > > > > > With that, I do have a general question though. Are referential actions > > > > supposed to be limited by the permissions of the user execu

Re: [HACKERS] Solution for RI permission problem

2000-10-04 Thread Jan Wieck
Stephan Szabo wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > Stephan Szabo writes: > > > > > With that, I do have a general question though. Are referential actions > > > supposed to be limited by the permissions of the user executing the query? > > > So, if you for example have writ

Re: [HACKERS] Solution for RI permission problem

2000-10-02 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Stephan Szabo writes: > > > With that, I do have a general question though. Are referential actions > > supposed to be limited by the permissions of the user executing the query? > > So, if you for example have write access on the pk table, but not

Re: [HACKERS] Solution for RI permission problem

2000-10-01 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Stephan Szabo writes: > With that, I do have a general question though. Are referential actions > supposed to be limited by the permissions of the user executing the query? > So, if you for example have write access on the pk table, but not to the > fk table, and there is a on cascade delete rela

Re: [HACKERS] Solution for RI permission problem

2000-10-01 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Here's what I've come up with to avoid "permission denied" errors when a > RI trigger has to lock a PK table. Whenever the SELECT FOR UPDATE is > executed I temporarily switch the current user id to the owner of the PK > table. It's not the grand

Re: [HACKERS] Solution for RI permission problem

2000-09-20 Thread Stephan Szabo
As a question, since I don't have a source tree available here at work, will there be an issue if an elog occurs between the various two user id sets? Just wondering, because most of those statements are do some SPI thing or elog. Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Peter Eis

[HACKERS] Solution for RI permission problem

2000-09-20 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Here's what I've come up with to avoid "permission denied" errors when a RI trigger has to lock a PK table. Whenever the SELECT FOR UPDATE is executed I temporarily switch the current user id to the owner of the PK table. It's not the grand unified solution via setuid functions that was envision