Re: [HACKERS] Permissions on copy

On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Two things.  First was a separate COPY priviledge, which I vote against.
> I see no real value to it, except to work around the problem that COPY
> doesn't use rules.

	Okay, I may be totally out in left field here (ie. unrelated), but
what stops a user from doing a 'COPY out' on a table that they don't have
SELECT privileges on?  Kind of negates 'REVOKE ALL...', no?

> Second, there was the idea of making copy allow a real select statement
> and not just a table name.  If we do that, all goes through the
> executor, and you get view and rules working properly.  May have some
> performance penalty, though it probabably will be minor.

	This sounds reasonable...