pg.ddx.io pgsql-sql@postgresql.org mailing list archivehelp / color / mirror / Atom feed
information_schema.referential_constraints permissions 2+ messages / 2 participants [nested] [flat]
* information_schema.referential_constraints permissions @ 2008-04-28 21:47 Lodewijk Voege <lvoege@gmail.com> 2008-04-28 23:14 ` Re: information_schema.referential_constraints permissions Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Lodewijk Voege @ 2008-04-28 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pgsql-sql hello, I have some code that gets foreign key information from information_schema.referential_constraints. I was puzzled about why it wasn't returning anything for a while, until I read the information_schema.sql file and the documentation carefully: it has a pg_has_role(c.relowner, 'USAGE') in it and the documentation states "The view referential_constraints contains all referential integrity (foreign key) constraints in the current database that belong to a table owned by a currently enabled role". Fair enough. But then I read the public draft of SQL 2003 and 200n on this view, and it speaks only of "tables in this catalog that are accessible to a given user or role", rather than ownership. the user I was working with most definately had access. it could also read the pg_* system catalog, such that if I copy/paste the view definition without the pg_has_role() line in it (and massage it a bit to remove the CASTs to sql_identifier and character_data) that user got just what I was expecting. so, is that restriction correct? Lodewijk ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: information_schema.referential_constraints permissions 2008-04-28 21:47 information_schema.referential_constraints permissions Lodewijk Voege <lvoege@gmail.com> @ 2008-04-28 23:14 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Tom Lane @ 2008-04-28 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lodewijk Voege <lvoege@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-sql "Lodewijk Voege" <lvoege@gmail.com> writes: > I have some code that gets foreign key information from > information_schema.referential_constraints. I was puzzled about why it wasn't > returning anything for a while, until I read the information_schema.sql file > and the documentation carefully: it has a pg_has_role(c.relowner, 'USAGE') in > it and the documentation states "The view referential_constraints contains all > referential integrity (foreign key) constraints in the current database that > belong to a table owned by a currently enabled role". > Fair enough. But then I read the public draft of SQL 2003 and 200n on this > view, and it speaks only of "tables in this catalog that are accessible to a > given user or role", rather than ownership. the user I was working with most > definately had access. The SQL committee changed that recently --- SQL92 and SQL99 define the view as Identify the referential constraints defined in this catalog that are owned by a given user. I don't think we've gotten around to trying to sync information_schema with SQL2003. (The whole concept that information_schema might be a moving target is pretty disturbing :-() regards, tom lane ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-04-28 23:14 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2008-04-28 21:47 information_schema.referential_constraints permissions Lodewijk Voege <lvoege@gmail.com> 2008-04-28 23:14 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox