You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org> on 2006/09/01 21:00:17 UTC
GRANT/REVOKE functional spec and database owner
The new database owner section in the GRANT/REVOKE functional spec
attached to DERBY-464 has this text:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12338762/grantRevokeSpec_v5.html
"Database owners assume the authorizationId of other users while
operating in their user schemas. Objects created by database owners in
other user schemas would be owned by that user."
The first sentence is not what Derby is doing today:
ij> set schema wilma;
0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
ij> values current_user;
1
--------------------------------
DBO
1 row selected
I think the code has the correct behaviour, I think was intended was
trying to explain the next sentence about the objects not being owned by
the DBA. I don't think the first sentence is needed, the second stands
by itself.
Dan.
Re: GRANT/REVOKE functional spec and database owner
Posted by Laura Stewart <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 9/1/06, Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> The new database owner section in the GRANT/REVOKE functional spec
> attached to DERBY-464 has this text:
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12338762/grantRevokeSpec_v5.html
>
> "Database owners assume the authorizationId of other users while
> operating in their user schemas. Objects created by database owners in
> other user schemas would be owned by that user."
>
> The first sentence is not what Derby is doing today:
>
> ij> set schema wilma;
> 0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
> ij> values current_user;
> 1
> --------------------------------
> DBO
> 1 row selected
>
> I think the code has the correct behaviour, I think was intended was
> trying to explain the next sentence about the objects not being owned by
> the DBA. I don't think the first sentence is needed, the second stands
> by itself.
>
> Dan.
>
>
>
>
I am not sure that I understand what you want changed... do you want
the first sentence removed because the second sentence stands on it's
own?
Please open a JIRA issue for this change and log it in the DocReviews
http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/TenTwoDocReview
--
Laura Stewart