Re: update table priv's in roles not working in 11G

From: Michel Cadot <micadot{at}altern{dot}org>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 16:03:32 +0200
Message-ID: <4bec06b2$0$662$>

"gs" <> a écrit dans le message de news: YzTGn.3888$Z6.49_at_edtnps82...
| Mladen Gogala wrote:
| > On Wed, 12 May 2010 15:27:12 +0000, gs wrote:
| >
| >> One of the databases I recently converted to 11Gr2 is showing me errors
| >> when an outside process tries to update a table via ODBC connection.
| >> This is a simple SQL update statement and is not from within a stored
| >> procedure. I am getting ORA-01031 after pointing the process to the new
| >> database, I checked the users roles, object priv's etc. and is identical
| >> to 9i, role basically gives said user read/write/update/delete on all of
| >> another users tables, one of which is the problem table.
| >>
| >> I tried the statement directly from sql as the user, and still threw a
| >> ORA-01031, so I granted update on the table directly and it was ok.
| >>
| >> Why would this be different in 11G? I'm also getting some strange errors
| >> where some of these processes are throwing "table not found" errors when
| >> using a public synonym for the table, yet the synonyms are all in
| >> place and work fine from SQL prompt when using them with the same user
| >> acct the processes use.
| >>
| >>
| >> thanks
| >
| > Did you switch to the new 11G security? 11G can distinguish between upper
| > case and lower case so your password may no longer match.
| >
| >
| >
| I did, and that was actually causing one of our problems, in that a user
| account could not connect as the password it was passing on was
| uppercase. However the case sensitive is for logons only, I still have
| the issue of one user acct connecting ok, but not able to update some
| tables, it turns out it is not seeing some sequences to populate a
| table, granting select on the sequences in question directly fixed this,
| but I'm still curious why this is, as these priv's are in a role that
| the user has assigned, the role is default, and it worked fine in 9i..

What about my previous answers?
The role is not activated even if it is a default one.

Michel Received on Thu May 13 2010 - 09:03:32 CDT

Original text of this message