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: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Regarding TODO item "%Add a separate TRUNCATE permission" |
Date: | 2006-04-26 18:13:57 |
Message-ID: | 200604261813.k3QIDvo26076@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > we need
> > to redesign the permission system to allow for more permission bits
> > because otherwise we'll run out soon.
>
> Only if we keep inventing separate privileges for things as specific
> as TRUNCATE. I was just about to raise this point as a possible reason
> why not to invent a separate TRUNCATE bit. (There are other problems,
> eg both 't' and 'T' letters are already taken.)
>
> The question that really ought to be answered before doing any of this
> is why DELETE privilege shouldn't be sufficient to allow TRUNCATE.
TODO has:
* %Add a separate TRUNCATE permission
Currently only the owner can TRUNCATE a table because triggers are not
called, and the table is locked in exclusive mode.
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-04-26 18:19:03 | Re: Regarding TODO item "%Add a separate TRUNCATE permission" |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-04-26 18:06:32 | Re: Regarding TODO item "%Add a separate TRUNCATE permission" |