"Jim Starkey" <jas@...> wrote:

>
> we really should recognize that it was a "hack", and under different
> circumstances, no one would have implement a situation where an "execute
> statement" would ever have a security context different than the code
> that executed it.

You're wrong here. Just ask Alex, his opinion has much more value than ours.

> There is no precedent for any SQL statement specifying the security
> context in which it executes. Let's not create one.

Imagine we have user A executing a procedure created by user B. This
procedure creates a table via EXEC STMT. Who's expected to become an owner
of this new table?


Dmitry