That strikes me as purely procedural thinking. Does the set of allowed operations really depend on the order of the requests (which probably depends on the query plan)? E.g. "you can update this field of this table only if you read this other field from that other table *first*"?
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] Im Auftrag von x Gesendet: Montag, 29. Juli 2019 10:05 An: SQLite mailing list <sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org> Betreff: Re: [sqlite] [EXTERNAL] Help with sqlite3TreeViewSelect >>Your implicit claim is "not all instances of column reference are reported to >>the authorizer, notably those inside a USING clause That and you’ve got to anticipate the order they’re sent to the callback in. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___________________________________________ Gunter Hick | Software Engineer | Scientific Games International GmbH | Klitschgasse 2-4, A-1130 Vienna | FN 157284 a, HG Wien, DVR: 0430013 | (O) +43 1 80100 - 0 May be privileged. May be confidential. Please delete if not the addressee. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
