SEO
vBulletin Search Engine Optimization
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
04-29-2008, 08:32 PM
| ||||
| ||||
 information_schema.referential_constraints permissions hello, I have some code that gets foreign key information from information_schema.referential_constraints. I was puzzled about why it wasn't returning anything for a while, until I read the information_schema.sql file and the documentation carefully: it has a pg_has_role(c.relowner, 'USAGE') in it and the documentation states "The view referential_constraints contains all referential integrity (foreign key) constraints in the current database that belong to a table owned by a currently enabled role". Fair enough. But then I read the public draft of SQL 2003 and 200n on this view, and it speaks only of "tables in this catalog that are accessible to a given user or role", rather than ownership. the user I was working with most definately had access. it could also read the pg_* system catalog, such that if I copy/paste the view definition without the pg_has_role() line in it (and massage it a bit to remove the CASTs to sql_identifier and character_data) that user got just what I was expecting. so, is that restriction correct? Lodewijk -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql      |
|
04-29-2008, 08:32 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: information_schema.referential_constraints permissions "Lodewijk Voege" <lvoege@gmail.com> writes: > I have some code that gets foreign key information from > information_schema.referential_constraints. I was puzzled about why it wasn't > returning anything for a while, until I read the information_schema.sql file > and the documentation carefully: it has a pg_has_role(c.relowner, 'USAGE') in > it and the documentation states "The view referential_constraints contains all > referential integrity (foreign key) constraints in the current database that > belong to a table owned by a currently enabled role". > Fair enough. But then I read the public draft of SQL 2003 and 200n on this > view, and it speaks only of "tables in this catalog that are accessible to a > given user or role", rather than ownership. the user I was working with most > definately had access. The SQL committee changed that recently --- SQL92 and SQL99 define the view as Identify the referential constraints defined in this catalog that are owned by a given user. I don't think we've gotten around to trying to sync information_schema with SQL2003. (The whole concept that information_schema might be a moving target is pretty disturbing :-() regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql |
Linear Mode
