Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of mar jun 12 17:08:09 -0400 2012: > >Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > > If we had an independent way to have the function run as a > > specific user, where that user DIDN'T own the function, I think > > Kevin's use case would be satisfied. > > I agree. I'm not sure quite what that would look like, but maybe > SECURITY ROLE <rolename> or some such could be an alternative to > SECURITY INVOKER and SECURITY DEFINER. (I haven't looked to see > what the standard has here.)
We talked briefly about this a year ago: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PgCon_2011_Developer_Meeting#Authorization_Issues (Not quite the same thing, but it's closely related). -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
