Re: [PATCHES] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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