Re: Re: [JDBC] unlink large objects

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Philip Crotwell <crotwell(at)seis(dot)sc(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [JDBC] unlink large objects
Date: 2001-06-09 20:32:46
Message-ID: 200106092032.f59KWkt28228@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc

> Philip Crotwell <crotwell(at)seis(dot)sc(dot)edu> writes:
> > I was vacuuming, but as the owner of the database. When I do that there
> > are messages that should have clued me in, lke
> > NOTICE: Skipping "pg_largeobject" --- only table owner can VACUUM it
>
> > From now on I will vacuum as user postgres, but I wonder if there is a
> > need for individual users to be able to vacuum large obects by themselves.
>
> Good point. More generally, it seems like it might be a good idea to
> allow the owner of an individual database to vacuum all the system
> catalogs in it, even if he's not the superuser. Comments anyone?

Seems db owner should be able to do whatever they want to the non-global
system tables.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-06-09 22:15:54 Re: Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal
Previous Message Vince Vielhaber 2001-06-09 18:42:36 Re: grant and SQL92

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2001-06-11 14:51:46 Re: Failed Connection (again)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-06-09 16:59:58 Re: [JDBC] unlink large objects