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

Re: Per-database search_path

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Per-database search_path
Date: 2006-09-29 22:11:58
Message-ID: 20060929221158.GA24766@fetter.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 05:41:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 01:06:09PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> However, it almost seems like this would become a piece of the
> >> other per-database-user stuff we'd like to do, like "local
> >> superuser".
> 
> > I'm not sure that's the same.  The thing about superuser as it
> > exists now is the ability to write to the filesystem, which means
> > that there's no boundary really possible.
> 
> Yeah.  ISTM the correct generalization is "per-user per-database
> default GUC settings", which has nothing to do with superuserness.

This sounds like a TODO for 8.3.  What wrinkles might this involve?
Offhand, I'm thinking that it would touch the inheritance stuff that
roles have.

Cheers,
D
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778        AIM: dfetter666
                              Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-09-29 22:15:36
Subject: Re: Per-database search_path
Previous:From: markDate: 2006-09-29 21:59:17
Subject: Re: Faster StrNCpy

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