| From: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not? |
| Date: | 2006-05-01 14:50:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20060501145017.GA30224@mark.mielke.cc |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 10:29:12AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> A cheesy compromise would be to switch userid for default-evaluation
> only if the expression contains any volatile functions. I find this
> idea pretty ugly, but it would allow us to still behave per-spec
> for CURRENT_USER while getting the results we want for nextval().
> (current_user() is marked "stable".)
If the user is specifying the default expression, they can specify
SECURITY DEFINER themselves, yes?
So it's really only the default definition of 'SERIAL' columns for
new tables. SERIAL isn't per-spec, yes? So it could change in 8.2
without problem?
Cheers,
mark
--
mark(at)mielke(dot)cc / markm(at)ncf(dot)ca / markm(at)nortel(dot)com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-01 15:18:13 | Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-01 14:40:07 | Re: RELKIND_SPECIAL |