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
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Remember to vote!
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-09-29 22:15:36|
|Subject: Re: Per-database search_path |
|Previous:||From: mark||Date: 2006-09-29 21:59:17|
|Subject: Re: Faster StrNCpy|