Thread

1. Re: [HACKERS] Here it is - view permissions

   Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 <andreas.zeugswetter@telecom.at> — 1998-02-24T09:21:57Z

   >> the table or even discover that it exists!
   >               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   > Not in 6.3, or maybe ever.  Too much OO stuff for that, I think.
   
   I vote for not ever. No commercial DBMS has it. It is a standard
   that is of very restricted practicability. You can always split into
   different 
   databases whatever needs turbo security.
   
   Andreas 
   
   

2. Re: [HACKERS] Here it is - view permissions

   Jan Wieck <jwieck@debis.com> — 1998-02-24T10:09:32Z

   Andreas wrote:
   >
   > >> the table or even discover that it exists!
   > >               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   > > Not in 6.3, or maybe ever.  Too much OO stuff for that, I think.
   >
   > I vote for not ever. No commercial DBMS has it. It is a standard
   > that is of very restricted practicability. You can always split into
   > different
   > databases whatever needs turbo security.
   
       I'm not quite sure if any commercial RDMBS does it. But since
       we don't have the ability to create multiple tables/views  of
       the  same  name  as  long  as the owner differs, I think it's
       better to stay as we  are.   As  long  as  PostgreSQL  cannot
       distinguish  tables  of  the  same name by a <user>.tablename
       syntax, it's better to let  them  know  what  tables  already
       exist.
   
   
   Jan
   
   --
   
   #======================================================================#
   # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
   # Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
   #======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #
   
   
   
   

3. Re: [HACKERS] Here it is - view permissions

   Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> — 1998-02-24T15:09:30Z

   > 
   > Andreas wrote:
   > >
   > > >> the table or even discover that it exists!
   > > >               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   > > > Not in 6.3, or maybe ever.  Too much OO stuff for that, I think.
   > >
   > > I vote for not ever. No commercial DBMS has it. It is a standard
   > > that is of very restricted practicability. You can always split into
   > > different
   > > databases whatever needs turbo security.
   > 
   >     I'm not quite sure if any commercial RDMBS does it. But since
   >     we don't have the ability to create multiple tables/views  of
   >     the  same  name  as  long  as the owner differs, I think it's
   >     better to stay as we  are.   As  long  as  PostgreSQL  cannot
   >     distinguish  tables  of  the  same name by a <user>.tablename
   >     syntax, it's better to let  them  know  what  tables  already
   >     exist.
   
   I have NOT added this to the TODO list.
   
   -- 
   Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
   maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
     +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
     +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)