Re: owned schema or role members?
- From: Erland Sommarskog <esquel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:02:57 +0000 (UTC)
Bart (b@xxxxxx) writes:
Thanks, but I still don't understand the difference between giving the
Role db_datareader / db_datawriter to user 'aspnet' and adding user
'aspnet' to Schema dbdatareader and Schema db_datawriter ...
You should not need the schemss. They exist of legacy reasons. In SQL 2000
there was no difference between a role/user on the one hand and a schema
on the other. If you created a user/role X, you also got a schema X included
in the price.
In SQL 2005 schemas and database principals (users and roles) are separated.
But Microsoft still by default creates schemas for all pre-defined roles
and users, since old applications may rely on these and create objects
in these schemas.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: owned schema or role members?
- From: Bart
- Re: owned schema or role members?
- References:
- owned schema or role members?
- From: Bart
- Re: owned schema or role members?
- From: Uri Dimant
- Re: owned schema or role members?
- From: Bart
- Re: owned schema or role members?
- From: Uri Dimant
- Re: owned schema or role members?
- From: Bart
- Re: owned schema or role members?
- From: Uri Dimant
- Re: owned schema or role members?
- From: Bart
- owned schema or role members?
- Prev by Date: Re: User ID issue - urgent
- Next by Date: Re: Setting Up SQL Security
- Previous by thread: Re: owned schema or role members?
- Next by thread: Re: owned schema or role members?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|