Re: Permissions for large-object comments

From: Shane Wegner <shane(at)cm(dot)nu>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Permissions for large-object comments
Date: 2001-08-25 00:48:18
Message-ID: 20010824174818.A14087@cm.nu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 02:45:40AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > Shane Wegner <shane(at)cm(dot)nu> writes:
> > > test=> \lo_unlink 89803
> > > ERROR: pg_description: Permission denied.
> >
> > Hmm. Maybe those client-side comment manipulations in psql aren't
> > such a hot idea. I know I never tested them as non-superuser :-(
>
> :-(
>
> > Shane, try that from a superuser Postgres userid. Meanwhile,
> > it's back to the drawing board for us.
>
> I'm not sure about the future of the large objects, so I'm less eager to
> invent a new mechanism. I'm open to ideas, however.

Well as I'm not a developer, this it out of my league.
However, if the future of large objects is in question, is
there a better way I should be storing large chunks of
binary data in the database. The text column doesn't seem
to support it.
Regards,
Shane

--
Shane Wegner: shane(at)cm(dot)nu
http://www.cm.nu/~shane/
PGP: 1024D/FFE3035D
A0ED DAC4 77EC D674 5487
5B5C 4F89 9A4E FFE3 035D

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-08-25 01:36:57 MD5 removal of int64 code
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-08-25 00:45:40 Re: Permissions for large-object comments

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-08-25 04:37:09 Re: backend dies on my aggregate function in 7.1.2
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-08-25 00:45:40 Re: Permissions for large-object comments