Re: Réf. : Re: [HACKERS] Runn

Well, first, you ought to learn the name of the product. It's Postgres
or PostgreSQL, but not PostGre.

I suspect that you will find other issues anyway in running from a
datadir on a read-only medium. I suggest you see if you can do it
regardless of this issue. If not, then some other product might suit you
better anyway (I believe Firebird has specific support for this, for
example.) We have never pretended that Postgres is a perfect fit for
every situation.

Finally, learn to chill a little. Getting angry doesn't help you or
anyone else.

cheers

andrew

eric(dot)leguillier(at)mpsa(dot)com wrote:

>
>
>NO, it won't reduce everybody's security.
>
>You obviously don't understand what I'm trying to say.
>
>It would NOT be the default option. The user could just choose by
>SPECIFYING it, that PostGre don't control the privileged he has.
>
>This discussion is amazing. Without this option, I CANNOT use PostGre, and
>I think I'm not the only one...
>
>Eric LEGUILLIER
>Projet BriqueBackup
>
>
>
>"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>>To be honest, the fact that Postgres forces you to run as a
>>>non-admin user has given me nothing but headaches. (yes, I
>>>know, the problem is defaulting everyone to admin rights is
>>>the problem. But that's where I am). I have been kicking
>>>around the idea of posting a change to allow you to run as
>>>admin,
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>This has been proposed before, and always rejected. While you're always
>>welcome to provide a patch, I'm very doubtful it would be accepted into
>>the main product.
>>
>>
>
>The example given in this thread certainly isn't going to change
>anybody's mind. "Hi, I propose reducing everybody's security because
>my local admins insist on an utterly brain-dead security policy."
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
>
>