Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 9 January 2013 21:42, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If we were designing this from scratch I'd agree that a separate TEMP
>> privilege would be a good thing. But bolting one on now is likely
>> to create more problems than it fixes. Particularly since it doesn't
>> actually fix any of the concrete problems enumerated in this thread.
>> I continue to think that getting rid of the privilege check would be
>> a more useful answer than changing which privilege is tested.
> I wasn't suggesting that we test for TEMP instead of CREATE; what I
> meant was we would test for CREATE *OR* TEMP to give more options for
[ shrug... ] That's weird, ie unlike the behavior of other privileges,
and it *still* doesn't fix any of the problems Stephen complained of.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2013-01-09 22:14:52|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] unified frontend support for pg_malloc et al and
palloc/pfree mulation (was xlogreader-v4)|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2013-01-09 22:06:49|
|Subject: Re: Reducing size of WAL record headers|