Sender: teo@flex.flex.ro
Message-ID: <38AC3840.EB320B34@flex.ro>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:04:48 +0200
From: Constantin Teodorescu <teo@flex.ro>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: Ed Loehr <eloehr@austin.rr.com>,
	PostgreSQL Interfaces <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] A question on triggers
References: <38AAAD16.C05F47C3@flex.ro> <38AACF15.E7148A20@austin.rr.com>
	<38AAEB22.19CF1C6B@flex.ro> <4624.950739193@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> >>>> Is there any chance to restrict the direct updates of any user to the
> >>>> "stock" table?
> >>>> So that the information in the "stock" table should be updated ONLY by
> >>>> those triggers?
> 
> > But wouldn't be nice if PostgreSQL could offer a more elegant solution?
> 
> Can't you do it with the normal GRANT/REVOKE access-control mechanism?

No. It didn't worked, that was my first idea!

> I'm pretty sure that for rules (views), the access rights for queries
> issued within the rule are checked based on the owner of the rule, not
> the user who invoked the rule.  Triggers ought to work the same way,
> though I haven't tried it.  So you could make the trigger function and
> the protected table owned by the same user, and then not grant write
> permission on that table to anyone else.

It seems it didn't work!

Constantin Teodorescu