Uploaded image for project: 'Derby'
  1. Derby
  2. DERBY-1929

SYSTABLEPERMS and SYSCOLPERMS documentation needs to be updated

    Details

    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Minor
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 10.2.1.6
    • Fix Version/s: 10.3.1.4
    • Component/s: Documentation
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      In the file http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.2/ref/rrefsistabssystableperms.html
      title = SYSTABLEPERMS
      In the column information for the SYSTABLEPERMS table's SELECTPRIV,DELETEPRIV,INSERTPRIV,UPDATEPRIV, REFERENCEPRIV and TRIGGERPRIV column. Their contents column should be: The valid values are 'y'(non-grantable privilege),'Y'(grantable privilege) and 'N'(no privilege).

      In the file http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.2/ref/rrefsistabssyscolperms.html
      title = SYSCOLPERMS
      In the column information for the SYSCOLPERMS table's TYPE column. Its content column should be: If the privilege is non-grantable, the valid values are 's' for SELECT, 'u' for UPDATE and 'r' for REFERENCES. If the privilege is grantable, the valid values are 'S' for SELECT, 'U' for UPDATE and 'R' for REFERENCES.

      1. derby1929.diff
        8 kB
        Laura Stewart
      2. rrefsistabssyscolperms.html
        7 kB
        Laura Stewart
      3. rrefsistabssystableperms.html
        9 kB
        Laura Stewart

        Activity

        Hide
        fuzzylogic Andrew McIntyre added a comment -

        Unsetting Fix Version on unassigned issues.

        Show
        fuzzylogic Andrew McIntyre added a comment - Unsetting Fix Version on unassigned issues.
        Hide
        scotsmatrix Laura Stewart added a comment -

        Attaching a patch and the 2 html files for review.

        Show
        scotsmatrix Laura Stewart added a comment - Attaching a patch and the 2 html files for review.
        Hide
        chaase3 Kim Haase added a comment -

        These look perfect from a docs standpoint (I see you even added index entries!); the changes are exactly as you describe. If you don't need a technical review I'd say they're good to go.

        Show
        chaase3 Kim Haase added a comment - These look perfect from a docs standpoint (I see you even added index entries!); the changes are exactly as you describe. If you don't need a technical review I'd say they're good to go.
        Hide
        scotsmatrix Laura Stewart added a comment -

        Committed revision 521090.

        Show
        scotsmatrix Laura Stewart added a comment - Committed revision 521090.

          People

          • Assignee:
            scotsmatrix Laura Stewart
            Reporter:
            scotsmatrix Laura Stewart
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development