RE: Adopted authority and triggers

This is how I understand adoption restriction on triggers (USEADPAUT
keyword).

Trigger pgm is often called by system programs (i.e. QDBPUT). Let's say I
have *USER only authority. I put a trigger on a file and wait until system
invokes the trigger. If it let me adopt authority from the invoker, I can
now do whatever I want in my program (i.e. grant myself QSYS level
authority).

USRPRF(*OWNER) is a separate issue and correct way to handle authority
elevation for trigger program. With this scheme you can have *USER person
insert into a file and trigger program update another file (or data queue
or...) that *USER person doesn't have access to.

At least that's the way I think about USEADPAUT vs USRPRF schemes.
HTH.

Elvis

Celebrating 10-Years of SQL Performance Excellence

-----Original Message-----
Subject: RE: Adopted authority and triggers

I've been somewhat following this thread and I'm confused/surprised by
how the authority is working (or not working).

I would have first expected that a user's authority to a trigger program
would either be ignored, or at least honor the adopted authority. I say
this because the trigger is, conceptually, a component of the DBMS.
Honoring the authority on the trigger program is somewhat akin to
preventing you from inserting a row into a physical because there's an
access path built over it that you don't have access to, and therefore
you can't update that access path.

However, I can accept that the design consideration was to honor
security, but they why ignore adopt? In the case of adopt I (the DBA)
have made the decision to allow this program to update a file, even if
the user running the program doesn't have access to the file. Why would
I want to then prevent the authority from flowing to the trigger?

Then, even if that's the design decision, the last thing I got from this
thread is that the trigger program wouldn't adopt authority, even if the
adopt was specified directly on the trigger program. While the other two
didn't make much sense, this makes absolutely no sense. Why would this
be the design? Does this make any sense to anyone?

One other thought, what if the trigger program called another program,
and _that_ program adopted authority, would the adoption then be
honored?

-Walden