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

• Re: Index build temp files at 2013-01-09 19:56:08 from Stephen Frost

Responses

• Re: Index build temp files at 2013-01-09 20:49:47 from Stephen Frost
• Re: Index build temp files at 2013-01-10 02:36:55 from Noah Misch

pgsql-hackers by date

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