Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 16:27 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
>> CREATE TABLE tbl_p (int a, int b);
>> CREATE TABLE tbl_c (int x) INHERITS(tbl_p);
>>
>> SELECT a,b FROM tbl_p; --> It selects data from only tbl_p.
>> It is reasonable to bypass checks on tbl_c.
>> SELECT b,x FROM tbl_c; --> It selects data from tbl_p and tbl_c concurrently,
>> if we consider the inherited columns are a part of
>> the parent table.
>
> I think you need to distinguish between the definition of columns and
> the data in the columns. tbl_c has inherited the definition of the
> columns from tbl_p, but the data is part of tbl_c, not tbl_p. So there
> is not reason for this second query to ask tbl_p for permission, because
> it does not touch data in tbl_p at all.
Yes, I can understand the second query selects data stored within only
tbl_c in this case, not tbl_p, even if tbl_c inherits its definitions
from the parent.
However, this perspective may be inconsistent to the idea to bypass
permission checks on the child (tbl_c) when we select data from the
parent (tbl_p), because the first query also fetches data stored
within the tbl_c, not only the tbl_p.
IMO, if we adopt the perspective which considers the access control
depends on the physical location, the current implementation works fine.
However, this idea proposed a different perspective.
It allows to bypass permission checks on the child tables, because
the child has identical definition with its parent and these are a part
of the parent table.
If so, I think this perspective should be ensured without any exception.
BTW, I basically think this perspective change is better.
Thanks,
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>