Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> writes:
>> It's not intended to be a security measure, and I would strongly
>> resist any attempt to make it so along the lines you propose.
> Intended or not, it does work.
No, you just haven't thought of a way to get around it yet. When you do
think of one, you'll be wanting us to contort the GUC system to plug the
loophole. We've already got a horrid mess in there for the LOG_XXX
variables, and I don't want to add more.
I'm not objecting to the idea of being able to make users read-only.
I'm objecting to using GUC for it. Send in a patch that, say, adds a
bool column to pg_shadow, and I'll be happy.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Sean Chittenden||Date: 2003-07-30 23:07:59|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Re: Why READ ONLY transactions?|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2003-07-30 21:59:58|
|Subject: Re: Warning for undefined cursor|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-07-30 22:58:10|
|Subject: Re: ruleutils with pretty-print option |
|Previous:||From: Joe Conway||Date: 2003-07-30 21:49:47|
|Subject: Re: hexadecimal to decimal|
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Jean-Michel POURE||Date: 2003-07-30 22:51:50|
|Subject: Re: Draft #5 -- radically re-written|
|Previous:||From: Sean Chittenden||Date: 2003-07-30 21:40:05|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Why READ ONLY transactions?|