Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Index build temp files

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index build temp files
Date: 2013-01-10 02:48:23
Message-ID: CA+U5nMJHZPa74iwP0cUgTKM-qW9m0BDgHefNfF7_m=jpGDYtsA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 10 January 2013 02:36, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 03:20:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What would people think of just eliminating the access-permissions
>> checks involved in temp_tablespaces?  It would likely be appropriate to
>> change temp_tablespaces from USERSET to SUSET if we did so.  So
>> essentially the worldview would become that the DBA is responsible for
>> the temp_tablespaces setting, not individual users.
>
> Allowing that the new behavior could be clearer, that gain is too small to
> justify the application compatibility hazard of making temp_tablespaces SUSET.
> I don't see something we can do here that clearly improves things overall.

Can't we do both behaviours? Skip permissions if using a value form
.conf, but don't if the user sets it themselves.

Having it USERSET allows different settings for different roles, which
is useful.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Noah MischDate: 2013-01-10 02:59:09
Subject: Re: Index build temp files
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2013-01-10 02:45:36
Subject: Re: lazy_vacuum_heap()'s removal of HEAPTUPLE_DEAD tuples

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group