Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
Cc: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls
Date: 2009-08-28 15:25:36
Message-ID: 9287.1251473136@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> What about DELETE permissions? Should we track that separately from
>> UPDATE?

> PostgreSQL checks ownership of the database object when user tries to
> drop it. This patch also add pg_largeobject_ownercheck() on lo_unlink().

Oh, okay, that will do fine.

>>> The CREATE USER/ROLE statement got a new option: LARGEOBJECT/NOLARGEOBJECT.
>>> It enables to controls whether the user can create a largeobject, or not.
>>
>> I don't think this is necessary or appropriate.

> What should control privilege to create a new largeobject?
> Or, it implicitly allows everyone to create a new one?

We have not had any requests to keep people from creating LOs, so I
think we can just implicitly allow everyone. If we were going to try
to manage it, I don't think a role attribute is a very good solution.
It's not grantable or inheritable, it can't be managed per-database,
etc. So I'd leave this out until there's some popular demand.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2009-08-28 15:39:47 Re: 8.5 release timetable, again
Previous Message KaiGai Kohei 2009-08-28 15:15:44 Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls