| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu, pg(at)rbt(dot)ca, zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |
| Date: | 2005-12-29 16:24:28 |
| Message-ID: | 7966.1135873468@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I an horribly scared that this will be used as a "performance boost" for
>> normal use. I would at least like to see some restrictions that make it
>> harder to mis-use. Perhaps restrict to superuser?
> Certainly restrict to table owner.
I can see the argument for superuser-only: decisions about data
integrity tradeoffs should be reserved to the DBA, who is the one who
will get blamed if the database loses data, no matter how stupid his
users are.
But I'm not wedded to that. I could live with table-owner.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2005-12-29 16:33:32 | Re: Removing SORTFUNC_LT/REVLT |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-12-29 16:14:37 | Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |