ACL-related adt functions: aclcontains vs aclcheck

Started by Nonameabout 24 years ago2 messages
#1Noname
fche@redhat.com

Hi -

Is there a good reason why the aclcontains() UDF in utils/adt/acl.c is
defined as it is, instead of calling over to aclcheck() in
catalog/aclchk.c? With that, aclcontains('{"group foo=r"}',"user bar=r")
would return true if bar is in foo.

- FChE

#2Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Noname (#1)
Re: ACL-related adt functions: aclcontains vs aclcheck

fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes:

Is there a good reason why the aclcontains() UDF in utils/adt/acl.c is
defined as it is, instead of calling over to aclcheck() in
catalog/aclchk.c?

Backwards compatibility?

With that, aclcontains('{"group foo=r"}',"user bar=r")
would return true if bar is in foo.

I suspect what you are really after is a function that tests "is
privilege x available to user y given this ACL?" That would be a
good thing to have, but I'd say make a new function for it; don't
arbitrarily redefine old functions, no matter how useless you might
think they are as-is.

regards, tom lane