From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 |
Date: | 2006-06-27 08:57:15 |
Message-ID: | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA579011F00E1@m0143.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> > > Suggest that we prevent write operations on Frozen tables by
> > > revoking
> > all INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE rights held, then enforcing a check
> > during GRANT to prevent them being re-enabled. Superusers would need
> > to check every time. If we dont do this, then we will have two
> > contradictory states marked in the catalog - privilges saying Yes
and
> > freezing saying No.
> >
> > No, I'd not mess with the permissions and return a different error
> > when trying to modify a frozen table. (It would also be complicated
to
> > unfreeze after create database) We should make it clear, that
freezing
> > is no replacement for revoke.
>
> That was with a mind to performance. Checking every INSERT,
> UPDATE and DELETE statement to see if they are being done
> against a frozen table seems like a waste.
I'd think we would have relminxid in the relcache, so I don't buy the
performance argument :-) (You could still do the actual check in the
same place where the permission is checked)
> There would still be a specific error message for frozen
> tables, just on the GRANT rather than the actual DML statements.
I'd still prefer to see the error on modify. Those that don't can
revoke.
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dhanaraj M | 2006-06-27 10:37:48 | Turning off disk caching |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-06-27 08:48:06 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-27 13:58:02 | Re: [PATCHES] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-06-27 08:08:35 | Re: [PATCHES] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 |