Re: Truncate Triggers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Truncate Triggers
Date: 2008-01-26 18:27:23
Message-ID: 8720.1201372043@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Of course, the last time this went around the argument was that we
> shouldn't add alot of extra code until we actually needed to, while at
> the same time we shouldn't use up the few remaining bits we have. The
> fact that this makes for an impossible situation seems to have been
> lost.

No, it hasn't been forgotten at all. Whenever we have to cross that
bridge, we'll do so. The questions being asked here are about whether
an adequate case has been made for adding *user-visible* complexity,
not about nitty little details of internal representation.

There are also some compatibility concerns involved. If we add
grantable privileges for TRUNCATE and/or DDL operations, then GRANT ALL
ON TABLE suddenly conveys a whole lot more privilege than it did before.
This could lead to unpleasant surprises in security-sensitive
operations. One could also put forward the argument that it's a direct
violation of the SQL spec, which after all does specify exactly what
privileges ALL is supposed to grant.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ivan Voras 2008-01-26 18:32:35 Re: Simple row serialization?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-01-26 18:13:33 Re: Truncate Triggers