Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Index build temp files

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index build temp files
Date: 2013-01-09 20:20:33
Message-ID: 1033.1357762833@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Alright, this isn't quite as open-and-shut as it may have originally
> seemed.  We're apparently cacheing the temp tablespaces which should be
> used, even across set role's and security definer functions, which I
> would argue isn't correct.

Ah.  Yeah, that would be true.

We do have mechanism that forces search_path to be recomputed across
changes of active role, but it's expensive to do that, and it seems
of rather debatable value to do it here --- it certainly wouldn't
improve Stephen's original problem, much less the other issues he
raises here.

What would people think of just eliminating the access-permissions
checks involved in temp_tablespaces?  It would likely be appropriate to
change temp_tablespaces from USERSET to SUSET if we did so.  So
essentially the worldview would become that the DBA is responsible for
the temp_tablespaces setting, not individual users.

			regards, tom lane


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2013-01-09 20:36:05
Subject: Reducing size of WAL record headers
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2013-01-09 20:15:46
Subject: Re: Index build temp files

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group