UsenetUser said:
My 9 dogs think I am a gruff old guy that does not feed them nearly
enough, hogging all the good stuff like fried chicken for myself, gets
unreasonably upset when they steal food from the kitchen table the
moment my back is turned, and torments them with vaccination
injections at the vet's!
Yeah but I bet they wag their tails off when they see you - you're a god
to them.
Back to business: I guess I do not understand the value of RWOP
queries (or query permissions in general) to control permissons, over
setting permissions on the tables themselves. Any thoughts on that?
With RWOP queries you don't need to give the users any permissions on
the tables at all - so therefore they can't even open the tables
directly - you can limit the records they see in a query using criteria.
The users though, need some kind of permissions in order to
add/delete/update data in those tables. 'Run with owner permissions'
queries allow them to do that. It means, when the users runs the query
it does so 'as though the query owner runs it'. Since the query owner
presumably has permissions on the tables, then the query is able to run
against those tables. You need to set the permissions on the query that
you want the users to have. So the query owner may have
insert/update/delete permissions on the tables, but that doesn't mean
that the user running the query will have those same permissions. You
need to set permissions on the *query* to dictate what they can do. So
you might give them update permission on the query. Even though the
owner has add/delete/update permission on the tables, the user will only
be limited to update because that is the permission they have on the
query they are running.