Message-ID: <510AD8E0.9020005@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:49:36 -0500
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8;
	rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick@gmail.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Privileges for INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SCHEMATA (was Re: Small
	clarification in "34.41. schemata")
References: 
 <CAB8KJ=g317u8GVyoi+E8cByOGVa+iNVsriTgC+XFA-k2wqpCTA@mail.gmail.com>
	<11650.1357782995@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <11650.1357782995@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

On 1/9/13 8:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> However, it seems to me that this behavior is actually wrong for our
> purposes, as it represents a too-literal reading of the spec.  The SQL
> standard has no concept of privileges on schemas, only ownership.
> We do have privileges on schemas, so it seems to me that the consistent
> thing would be for this view to show any schema that you either own or
> have some privilege on.  That is the test should be more like 
> 
> 	pg_has_role(n.nspowner, 'USAGE')
> 	OR has_schema_privilege(n.oid, 'CREATE, USAGE')
> 
> As things stand, a non-superuser won't see "public", "pg_catalog",
> nor even "information_schema" itself in this view, which seems a
> tad silly.

I agree it would make sense to change this.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs