| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Novice <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [NOVICE] Question on TRUNCATE privleges |
| Date: | 2005-02-24 22:10:50 |
| Message-ID: | 200502242210.j1OMAoM22390@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-novice |
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> > It looks to me like the asymmetry between CREATE TRIGGER and DROP
> > TRIGGER is actually required by SQL99, though, so changing it would
> > be a hard sell (unless SQL2003 fixes it?).
> >
> > Comments anyone?
> >
> Why not say that TRUNCATE requires the same privilige as a DELETE and
> add a trigger type that fires (once) on a TRUNCATE? That would give an
> owner a chance to prevent it. Such a trigger would probably be useful
> for other things too.
Uh, that seems like it adds extra complexity just for this single case.
Why don't we allow TRUNCATE by non-owners only if no triggers are
defined, and if they are defined, we throw an error and mention it is
because triggers/contraints exist?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-24 22:15:42 | Re: [NOVICE] Question on TRUNCATE privleges |
| Previous Message | Francisco Figueiredo Jr. | 2005-02-24 21:49:35 | Re: [JDBC] Where are we on stored procedures? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-24 22:15:42 | Re: [NOVICE] Question on TRUNCATE privleges |
| Previous Message | George Weaver | 2005-02-24 19:44:24 | Re: shutdown postmaster question |