Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>> On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 16:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Paranoia would
>>>> suggest forbidding *any* form of ALTER TABLE when there are pending
>>>> trigger events, but maybe that's unnecessarily strong.
>> I disagree. This is an implementation limitation, so it makes sense to
>> try to restrict the user as least as possible.
> There's a tradeoff here between security, flexibility, and the amount of
> work we want to put into it. At the moment it's not clear to me that
> it's worth spending the amount of work that would be needed to determine
> which forms of ALTER TABLE are "safe" in this connection. If you're
> feeling hot about it, feel free to do the legwork.
> (A precedent is that all forms of ALTER TABLE take exclusive lock,
> which is more or less the same thing for the cross-backend case.
> There's been occasional discussion of whether some forms could
> take lesser locks, but never enough interest to make it happen.)
I'd still like to see a sane use case. The other thing being traded off
is possibly simplicity.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Lor||Date: 2008-01-03 16:08:12|
|Subject: Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE printing logical and hardware I/O
|Previous:||From: Doug Knight||Date: 2008-01-03 15:57:41|
|Subject: Tuning Postgresql on Windows XP Pro 32 bit|