Re: Réf. : Re: [HACKERS] Runn

From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: eric(dot)leguillier(at)mpsa(dot)com
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Réf. : Re: [HACKERS] Runn
Date: 2005-11-16 01:51:41
Message-ID: 437A90AD.9020807@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> NO, it won't reduce everybody's security.
>
> You obviously don't understand what I'm trying to say.
>
> It would NOT be the default option. The user could just choose by
> SPECIFYING it, that PostGre don't control the privileged he has.
>
> This discussion is amazing. Without this option, I CANNOT use PostGre, and
> I think I'm not the only one...
>
> Eric LEGUILLIER
> Projet BriqueBackup

It's been fine for 15 years on Unix.

Chris

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2005-11-16 01:59:44 Re: PG_DUMP and table locking in PG7.4
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-11-16 01:45:50 Re: server closed connection on a select query