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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Noah Misch||Date: 2013-01-10 03:11:36|
|Subject: Re: lazy_vacuum_heap()'s removal of HEAPTUPLE_DEAD tuples|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2013-01-10 02:48:23|
|Subject: Re: Index build temp files|