| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu, pg(at)rbt(dot)ca, zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |
| Date: | 2006-01-03 16:38:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20060103163852.GI82560@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:29:02AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > In general, I do prefer that permissions be seperably grantable. Being
> > able to grant 'truncate' permissions would be really nice. Is the only
> > reason such permission doesn't exist due to no one working on it, or is
> > there other disagreement about it?
>
> Lack of appetite for having forty nonstandard kinds of privilege,
> I suppose ;-)
>
> Given that we now have roles, it's fairly easy to grant "table owner"
> to trusted people, so the use-case for special privilege types has
> dropped off dramatically IMHO.
Yeah, I hadn't thought about that. I agree; if you trust some process
enough to have MVCC-affecting rights then you should be able to trust it
with full ownership rights.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-01-03 16:43:23 | Re: Stats collector performance improvement |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-03 16:35:56 | Re: Stats collector performance improvement |