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

Re: pg_am.amowner

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_am.amowner
Date: 2000-06-01 02:26:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> It seems that access methods nominally have an "owner", but that owner is
> nowhere else referenced. Since there is no user interface for adding
> access methods anyway, would there be any problems with removing that
> field?

Hmm ... offhand I'm having a hard time seeing that it would make sense
to associate protection checks with an access method.  The only use
I can see for the owner field is to control who could delete an access
method --- and I don't have much problem with saying "only the
superuser".  It's even harder to believe that we'd really want non-
superusers installing access methods.

But the other side of the coin is what harm is it doing?  Surely you're
not worried about the space occupied by the column ;-)

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-06-01 02:36:56
Subject: Re: pg_am.amowner
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-06-01 02:13:07
Subject: Re: uniqueness not always correct

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group