Russell Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But this also means that a super user is not really a super user
> anymore. Are we comfortable with this redefinition?
Hm? It has never been the case that a view would act differently for a
superuser than it would when invoked by someone else. The bu
Tom Lane wrote:
"Russell Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CREATE view v1 as select * from t1;
ALTER TABLE v1 OWNER TO "USER";
See thread here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-04/msg01138.php
and patch here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2006-09/msg
"Russell Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> CREATE view v1 as select * from t1;
> ALTER TABLE v1 OWNER TO "USER";
See thread here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-04/msg01138.php
and patch here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2006-09/msg00101.php
This was not
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 3265
Logged by: Russell Smith
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.2.4
Operating system: RHEL4
Description:8.1 -> 8.2 behviour change: View owner must have access
to underlying tables
Details:
