On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 11:15:31 -0500,
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes, default expressions and check constraints could possibly. However,
> both revoke complex expressions (no sub-selects, etc) so there is little
> point.
I disagree. They can call functions which can do unexpec
On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 10:33, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 10:17:26 -0500,
> Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can't necessarily run them as the table owner, as it may give
> > information to other users with the ability to ALTER that table.
>
> You have to be the tabl
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 10:17:26 -0500,
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can't necessarily run them as the table owner, as it may give
> information to other users with the ability to ALTER that table.
You have to be the table owner to alter a table. So it should be OK
to have the default
On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 09:54, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Constraints also run as the user modifying a table instead of the table
> owner.
> Again I don't see a good reason to want to execute constraints as the
> user modifying a table. But I do think there can be reasons to want to
> execute them as t
Constraints also run as the user modifying a table instead of the table
owner.
Again I don't see a good reason to want to execute constraints as the
user modifying a table. But I do think there can be reasons to want to
execute them as the table owner.
To summarize, my suggestion for change is:
E
