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

Re: Must be owner to truncate?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>,Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Must be owner to truncate?
Date: 2005-07-30 03:15:05
Message-ID: 200507300315.j6U3F6011533@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> * Jim C. Nasby (decibel(at)decibel(dot)org) wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 01:48:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > I don't really agree with the viewpoint that truncate is just a quick
> > > DELETE, and so I do not agree that DELETE permissions should be enough
> > > to let you do a TRUNCATE.
> > 
> > What about adding a truncate permission? I would find it useful, as it
> > seems would others.
> 
> That would be acceptable for me as well.  I'd prefer it just work off
> delete, but as long as I can grant truncate to someone w/o giving them
> ownership rights on the table I'd be happy.

Added to TODO:

	* Add TRUNCATE permission
	
	  Currently only the owner can TRUNCATE a table because triggers are not
	  called, and the table is locked in exclusive mode.

-- 
  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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-07-30 03:21:19
Subject: Re: Vacuum summary?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-07-30 02:52:40
Subject: Re: PQescapeIdentifier

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