Re: Truncate Triggers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Truncate Triggers
Date: 2008-01-25 19:00:50
Message-ID: 3602.1201287650@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 10:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There are way too many table privilege bits already; to add more you
>> need something a lot stronger than a "might be nice" argument.

> People use TRUNCATE whatever we say. If you force people to be table
> owners or superusers you merely restrict their security options.

By that argument you could justify a separate privilege bit for anything
at all, eg, each sub-variant of ALTER TABLE. Please present an actual
argument why TRUNCATE should get its own bit.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2008-01-25 19:05:06 Re: Truncate Triggers
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-01-25 18:54:36 Re: Proposal: Integrity check