Message-ID: <47B1580A.7050703@obviously.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:25:46 -0800
From: Bryce Nesbitt <bryce1@obviously.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20070803 SUSE/1.1.7-0.1 SeaMonkey/1.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sql pgsql <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed archival read only trigger on rows - prevent history
	modification
References: <771732.23057.qm@web54301.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <771732.23057.qm@web54301.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yes, the view approach has some advantages.  But it still leaves the
underlying tables naked to modification.
And since the most likely error is... well... me (or another admin) at
the SQL prompt, we want underlying tables protected also.

chester c young wrote:
> instead of triggers I use update-able views and permissions.
>
> 1. all dml goes through the view
> 2. use rules on the view to do dml to the table
> 3. in rules prevent updating all/any columns when whatever
> 4. grant dml to view to your pgconnect user
> 5. revoke dml from table to your pgconnect user
>
> imho another instance where rules rule.  for example, you can easily
> fit logging into the same view.
>   

-- 
----
Visit http://www.obviously.com/