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

Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu, pg(at)rbt(dot)ca, zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and
Date: 2006-01-03 16:29:02
Message-ID: 16856.1136305742@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> In general, I do prefer that permissions be seperably grantable.  Being
> able to grant 'truncate' permissions would be really nice.  Is the only
> reason such permission doesn't exist due to no one working on it, or is
> there other disagreement about it?

Lack of appetite for having forty nonstandard kinds of privilege,
I suppose ;-)

Given that we now have roles, it's fairly easy to grant "table owner"
to trusted people, so the use-case for special privilege types has
dropped off dramatically IMHO.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-01-03 16:35:56
Subject: Re: Stats collector performance improvement
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-01-03 16:28:36
Subject: Re: Add a "Known Issues" section

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