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

Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes

From: Yury Bokhoncovich <byg(at)center-f1(dot)ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>,Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>,Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes
Date: 2002-03-12 06:08:14
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0203121201460.13900-100000@panda.center-f1.ru (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Hello!

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

[skip]
> operations to take vastly longer than they're expected to.  So giving
> away the right to manipulate indexes is at the very least an opening
> to denial-of-service problems.

Yes, but this is what sysadmin is for, isn'it?

> In any case, what you are really suggesting here is that we offer a
> grantable "right to create/drop indexes" on a *table*.  Dangerous or
> not, it could be useful.  But it has nothing that I can see to do with
> a notion of ownership of the indexes themselves; there's still no visible
> reason to consider the indexes to have ownership independent of the
> table they're on.

Partially agreed. It seems to be that such behaviour resembles MySQL one.
How about index on a view?
Thanks for a clue anyway.

-- 
WBR, Yury Bokhoncovich, Senior System Administrator, NOC of F1 Group.
Phone: +7 (3832) 106228, ext.140, E-mail: byg(at)center-f1(dot)ru(dot)
Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside.



In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alexey SlynkoDate: 2002-03-12 12:18:35
Subject: JDBC arrays
Previous:From: Paul EggertDate: 2002-03-12 05:59:30
Subject: Re: support for POSIX 1003.1-2001 hosts

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