> On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 13:36 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > However, I still maintain that views are the perfect security
mechanism
> > for system catalogs. Imagine that all the system catalogs were all
> > views, and could be redefined or even dropped by the dba. They
would
> > present exactl
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 13:36 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> However, I still maintain that views are the perfect security mechanism
> for system catalogs. Imagine that all the system catalogs were all
> views, and could be redefined or even dropped by the dba. They would
> present exactly the same
> "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However, I'm a little unclear about where you stand on the relative
> > merit (whatever the implementation) of hiding at the very least
prosrc
> > from non-priv users.
>
> OK, in words of one syllable: I'm agin it.
> I think your proposal is a hac
"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I'm a little unclear about where you stand on the relative
> merit (whatever the implementation) of hiding at the very least prosrc
> from non-priv users.
OK, in words of one syllable: I'm agin it.
I think your proposal is a hack that solves
> "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 1. Am I totally off my rocker for suggesting users without 'execute'
> > priv. should not be able to view procedure source.
>
> 1. I don't particularly buy that, no. Why draw the line at seeing
> source code? The mere name and argument list migh
"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. Am I totally off my rocker for suggesting users without 'execute'
> priv. should not be able to view procedure source.
1. I don't particularly buy that, no. Why draw the line at seeing
source code? The mere name and argument list might be conside
