
> > On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 
> > > Two things.  First was a separate COPY priviledge, which I vote
> against.
> > > I see no real value to it, except to work around the problem that COPY
> > > doesn't use rules.
> > 
> > 	Okay, I may be totally out in left field here (ie. unrelated), but
> > what stops a user from doing a 'COPY out' on a table that they don't
> have
> > SELECT privileges on?  Kind of negates 'REVOKE ALL...', no?
> 
> Yes I think a separate COPY permission makes no sense.
> 
> > > Second, there was the idea of making copy allow a real select
> statement
> > > and not just a table name.  If we do that, all goes through the
> > > executor, and you get view and rules working properly.  May have some
> > > performance penalty, though it probabably will be minor.
> > 
> > 	This sounds reasonable...
> >
> 
>  
Just to make you comfortable, yes I also completely agree

Andreas



Fri, 20 Feb 1998 18:56:12 +0100
Zeugswetter Andreas SARZ <Andreas.Zeugswetter@telecom.at>
AW: [HACKERS] Permissions on copy