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

Re: pg_am.amowner

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_am.amowner
Date: 2000-06-01 02:36:56
Message-ID: 200006010236.WAA10966@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > It seems that access methods nominally have an "owner", but that owner is
> > nowhere else referenced. Since there is no user interface for adding
> > access methods anyway, would there be any problems with removing that
> > field?
> 
> Hmm ... offhand I'm having a hard time seeing that it would make sense
> to associate protection checks with an access method.  The only use
> I can see for the owner field is to control who could delete an access
> method --- and I don't have much problem with saying "only the
> superuser".  It's even harder to believe that we'd really want non-
> superusers installing access methods.
> 
> But the other side of the coin is what harm is it doing?  Surely you're
> not worried about the space occupied by the column ;-)

Seems our system catalogs are confusing enough.  Any trimming is
helpful, no?


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2000-06-01 03:11:15
Subject: Re: Back online
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-06-01 02:26:12
Subject: Re: pg_am.amowner

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