Re: owned schema or role members?
- From: "Bart" <b@xxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:34:46 +0200
ok, thanks
"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
news:Xns99004B34D29Yazorman@xxxxxxxxxxxx
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
.
- 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
- Re: owned schema or role members?
- From: Erland Sommarskog
- owned schema or role members?
- Prev by Date: Re: Setting Up SQL Security
- Next by Date: Re: Windows Authentication from a workgroup to a domain sql server
- Previous by thread: Re: owned schema or role members?
- Next by thread: Re: Setting Up SQL Security
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|