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

From: gs <gs_at_gs.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 16:41:51 GMT
Message-ID: <jZVGn.3891$Z6.1250_at_edtnps82>



Michel Cadot wrote:
> "gs" <gs_at_gs.com> 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.
>
> Regards
> Michel
>
>

yes I'm still checking into that, there was a rush to get it working so I took the short way of granting "selects on x" etc. for users to get processes up and running, now I have to stand back and (re)look at things now to figure out what/why things didn't work, ie. why default roles were not activated in 11G Received on Thu May 13 2010 - 11:41:51 CDT

Original text of this message