X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D49108B9EFC for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:01:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 65916-01 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:01:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gauss.credativ.com (ipx11302.ipxserver.de [212.112.227.254]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487EC8B9EE3 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:01:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from bell.credativ.de (pD95005E5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.80.5.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gauss.credativ.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B11AD788D; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:01:27 +0100 (CET) From: Peter Eisentraut To: Michael Fuhr Subject: Re: No triggers visible for different user in information_schema.triggers Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:00:52 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: Oliver =?iso-8859-1?q?Br=FCck?= , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org References: <4214BF20.1010908@waagner-biro.com> <20050217174332.GA26546@winnie.fuhr.org> In-Reply-To: <20050217174332.GA26546@winnie.fuhr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200502181200.53606.peter_e@gmx.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.05 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200502/206 X-Sequence-Number: 20317 Am Donnerstag, 17. Februar 2005 18:43 schrieb Michael Fuhr: > SQL:2003 (Working Draft) says: > > Identify the triggers on tables in this catalog that are accessible > to a given user or role. > > Apparently PostgreSQL implements the SQL:1999 specification of > information_schema.triggers. While that is true, superuserdom consistently does not play any role in the information schema for the purpose of figuring out what is accessible to a certain user. This may be considered a bug, but it would also create inconsistencies because the state "accessible to" is defined by other information schema tables where superuserdom cannot be represented. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/