From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Vaishnavi Prabakaran <vaishnaviprabakaran(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal of superuser() checks |
Date: | 2017-11-09 17:56:49 |
Message-ID: | 7933.1510250209@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Another idea would be to invent a new external flag bit "INV_WRITE_ONLY",
>> so that people who wanted true write-only could get it, without breaking
>> backwards-compatible behavior. But I'm inclined to wait for some field
>> demand to show up before adding even that little bit of complication.
> Demand that may never show up, and the current behavior on HEAD does
> not receive any complains either. I am keeping the patch simple for
> now. That's less aspirin needed for everybody.
Looks good to me, pushed.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-11-09 17:58:19 | Re: pageinspect option to forgo buffer locking? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-11-09 17:55:30 | Re: pageinspect option to forgo buffer locking? |