| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "'Oliver Elphick'" <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Permissions on CHECKPOINT |
| Date: | 2001-01-26 17:07:40 |
| Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D32BD@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Actually, I think a more interesting question is "should CHECKPOINT
> have permission restrictions? If so, what should they be?"
>
> A quite relevant precedent is that Unix systems (at least the ones
> I've used) do not restrict who can call sync().
Checkpoints 1. affect entire system, 2. increase log output and
3. it's hard operation. Command itself was added mostly for debug
purposes.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-01-26 17:29:08 | RE: Hardwired MAXBACKENDS limit could be history |
| Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-01-26 16:59:41 | RE: Permissions on CHECKPOINT |