Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Thursday 23 July 2009 06:26:05 Petr Jelinek wrote:
I'd still like to have opinion from one of the commiters on "the
VIEW problem" which also affects grant on all patch ( see
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg00957.php ) and
I fear "returned with feedback" might prevent that until next commit fest.
I see potential for confusion in that GRANT ON TABLE x works if x is a base
table or a view, but GRANT ON ALL TABLES would not affect views. Maybe you
need to make up a different syntax to affect only base tables, e.g., GRANT ON
ALL BASE TABLES.
That's not what I mean the problem is what is the best way of handling
the views in implementation itself (there were IIRC 3 possible solutions
devised and I don't think we have consensus on which is better).
In short,
1. add ACL_OBJECT_VIEW into GrantObjectType enum and track that inside code
2. create new enum with table, view, function and sequence objects in it
(that works well for DefaultACLs but not for GRANT ON ALL)
3. add some boolean into GrantStmt that would indicate that relation is
a view (that works for GRANT ON ALL but does not solve anything for
DefaultACLs)
Currently DefaultACLs patch uses method 2 (because Stephen does not like
method 1) and GRANT ON ALL patch uses method 1 and it might be better if
both patches uses only one of those.
If we went with method 1 we probably should just ditch GrantObjectType
alltogether and work with subset of ObjectType as other commands do (I
haven't found any reason for GrantObjectType to exist other than having
single object type for both TABLE and VIEW).
And If we choose not to use method 1 then we should probably go with 2
for DefaultACLs and 3 for GRANT ON ALL. That is unless somebody has a
better solution.
--
Regards
Petr Jelinek (PJMODOS)
