On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Alvaro Herrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I had a look at aclchk.c and didn't like your change to
objectNamesToOids; seems rather baroque. I changed it per the attached
patch.
I've incorporated this change.
Moreover
Alvaro,
* Alvaro Herrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I had a look at aclchk.c and didn't like your change to
objectNamesToOids; seems rather baroque. I changed it per the attached
patch.
I've incorporated this change.
Moreover I didn't very much like the way aclcheck_error_col is dealing
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I'll probably fix both things and submit an updated version tomorrow.
Here it is. This applies cleanly to current CVS HEAD and passes the
regression tests. Apart from fixing the conflicts, I updated psql's \z
with the new array aggregate, and changed the Schema_pg_*
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I'll probably fix both things and submit an updated version tomorrow.
Here it is.
Really attached this time.
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I didn't check the rest of the code, so don't count this as a review.
I had a look at aclchk.c and didn't like your change to
objectNamesToOids; seems rather baroque. I changed it per the attached
patch.
Moreover I didn't very much like the way aclcheck_error_col is
Hello Stephen,
Stephen Frost wrote:
Attached patch has this fixed and still passes all regression tests,
etc.
Do you have an up-to-date patch laying around? The current one conflicts
with some CVS tip changes.
I didn't get around writing some docu, yet. Sorry.
Regards
Markus Wanner
--
Markus,
* Markus Wanner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
Attached patch has this fixed and still passes all regression tests,
etc.
Do you have an up-to-date patch laying around? The current one conflicts
with some CVS tip changes.
No, not yet. I suspect the array_agg
Stephen Frost wrote:
Markus,
* Markus Wanner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
Attached patch has this fixed and still passes all regression tests,
etc.
Do you have an up-to-date patch laying around? The current one conflicts
with some CVS tip changes.
No, not
Hello Stephen,
Stephen Frost wrote:
This has been fixed in the attached patch.
Cool, thanks.
If you could work on the documentation, that'd be great!
I'll give it a try.
Regards
Markus Wanner
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... A case I just realized might be an issue is
doing a 'select 1 from x;' where you have *no* rights on x, or any
columns in it, would still get you the rowcount.
Well, if you have table-level select on x, I
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... A case I just realized might be an issue is
doing a 'select 1 from x;' where you have *no* rights on x, or any
columns in it, would still get you the rowcount.
Well, if you have table-level select on x, I
Markus,
* Markus Wanner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Sorry, this took way longer than planned.
Beleive me, I understand. :)
testdb=# GRANT TRUNCATE (single_col) ON test TO malory;
GRANT
This has been fixed in the attached patch.
Some privilege regression tests currently fail with your
Markus, et al,
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I also wonder if you could use joins or something
to extract information about columns you're not supposed to have access
to, or where clauses, etc..
welp, I've done some additional testing and there's good news and bad, I
suppose.
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... A case I just realized might be an issue is
doing a 'select 1 from x;' where you have *no* rights on x, or any
columns in it, would still get you the rowcount.
Well, if you have table-level select on x, I would expect that to work,
even if your privs
Hi,
Markus Wanner wrote:
As mentioned in above, regression tests, documentation updates,
dependency handling, and actually implementing the permission checks all
remain. What I'm looking for feedback on are the changes to the
grammer, parser, catalog changes, psql output, etc.
Aha, good. So
Hello Stephen,
Stephen Frost wrote:
Comments welcome, apologies for it not being ready by 9/1. I'm
planning to continue working on it tomorrow, and throughout September
as opportunity allows (ie: when Josh isn't keeping me busy).
I'm trying to review this patch. I could at least
Hi Markus,
* Markus Wanner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
Comments welcome, apologies for it not being ready by 9/1. I'm
planning to continue working on it tomorrow, and throughout September
as opportunity allows (ie: when Josh isn't keeping me busy).
I'm trying to
Hi,
Stephen Frost wrote:
I would suggest you review the updated patch (linked off the wiki page)
here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's the patch I've been talking about: file
colprivs_wip.20080902.diff.gz, dated Sept, 2nd.
It includes my comments about
Greetings,
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Comments welcome, apologies for it not being ready by 9/1. I'm
planning to continue working on it tomorrow, and throughout September
as opportunity allows (ie: when Josh isn't keeping me busy).
Here is an updated patch. I've added
19 matches
Mail list logo
