| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Index build temp files |
| Date: | 2013-01-10 02:59:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20130110025909.GC11600@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 02:48:23AM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 10 January 2013 02:36, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 03:20:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> What would people think of just eliminating the access-permissions
> >> checks involved in temp_tablespaces? It would likely be appropriate to
> >> change temp_tablespaces from USERSET to SUSET if we did so. So
> >> essentially the worldview would become that the DBA is responsible for
> >> the temp_tablespaces setting, not individual users.
> >
> > Allowing that the new behavior could be clearer, that gain is too small to
> > justify the application compatibility hazard of making temp_tablespaces SUSET.
> > I don't see something we can do here that clearly improves things overall.
>
> Can't we do both behaviours? Skip permissions if using a value form
> .conf, but don't if the user sets it themselves.
We could, though I share Tom's reluctance[1].
[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1985.1357765424@sss.pgh.pa.us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2013-01-10 03:11:36 | Re: lazy_vacuum_heap()'s removal of HEAPTUPLE_DEAD tuples |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-01-10 02:48:23 | Re: Index build temp files |