db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Deepa Remesh (JIRA)" <derby-...@db.apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1522) Switch(if supported) from Derby Authorization to Derby SQL Standard Authorization needs to be tested
Date Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:02:14 GMT
    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1522?page=comments#action_12425269 ] 
            
Deepa Remesh commented on DERBY-1522:
-------------------------------------

Thanks Mamta for sharing your thoughts on this.

Reading this and the comments in DERBY-1544, I am confused and wondering what the planned
behaviour for 10.2 is regarding the following:

1) Mamta says: "after the upgrade, all the existing schemas and objects in them should be
owned by the dba and any other users will need to have permissions granted to them by the
dba."

Current behaviour is what Mamta says. But DERBY-1544 is open to change the behaviour as follows:

"Upgrading a database from 10.1 to 10.2 should automatically change database owner, recorded
as owner of system schemas in sysschemas, from pseudo user 'DBA' to authorizationID of the
user attempting upgrade."

This is same as what the spec says.  

2) DERBY-1544 mentions adding 5 system routines to routine permission table after a full upgrade.

Is DERBY-1544 planned for 10.2 or are we planning to keep the current behaviour?

> Switch(if supported) from Derby Authorization to Derby SQL Standard Authorization needs
to be tested
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-1522
>                 URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1522
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: JDBC
>    Affects Versions: 10.2.0.0
>            Reporter: Mamta A. Satoor
>             Fix For: 10.2.0.0
>
>
> There has been discussions on the Derby-dev list about switch from Derby Authorization
to Derby SQL Standard Authorization for existing databases. If we do decide to support a switch
like that, testing needs to be done/added to make sure everything works fine after the switch.
> ps I have added this JIRA entry to JDBC component but I am not 100% sure if that is the
right component.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Mime
View raw message