Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176A747644E
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:56:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (davinci.ethosmedia.com [209.10.40.250])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1FAA476438
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:56:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [63.195.55.98] (account <josh@agliodbs.com>)
	by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 3.5.9)
	with HTTP id 1821190; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:59:56 -0800
From: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>
Subject: Re: Permission on insert rules
To: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Luis Sousa <llsousa@ualg.pt>,
	pgsql-sql <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.3.5.9
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:59:56 -0800
Message-ID: <web-1821190@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
In-Reply-To: <1037033140.26585.34.camel@camel>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200211/167
X-Sequence-Number: 10309

Robert,

> If the functions can fire as there creator instead of there caller,
> then
> I would think as long as the creator has insert/update views on the
> base
> table, you should be able to do updateable rules and give only
> permissions to the view for the caller. (Though maybe you have to use
> triggers rather than rules to do this?) Does that sound right?

I don't know.  Can you test it?

-Josh