From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Per-database search_path |
Date: | 2006-09-29 22:11:58 |
Message-ID: | 20060929221158.GA24766@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 05:41:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 01:06:09PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> However, it almost seems like this would become a piece of the
> >> other per-database-user stuff we'd like to do, like "local
> >> superuser".
>
> > I'm not sure that's the same. The thing about superuser as it
> > exists now is the ability to write to the filesystem, which means
> > that there's no boundary really possible.
>
> Yeah. ISTM the correct generalization is "per-user per-database
> default GUC settings", which has nothing to do with superuserness.
This sounds like a TODO for 8.3. What wrinkles might this involve?
Offhand, I'm thinking that it would touch the inheritance stuff that
roles have.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter
Remember to vote!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-29 22:15:36 | Re: Per-database search_path |
Previous Message | mark | 2006-09-29 21:59:17 | Re: Faster StrNCpy |