Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PATCH] [v8.5] Security checks on largeobjects

From: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
To: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v8.5] Security checks on largeobjects
Date: 2009-06-29 18:52:52
Message-ID: C4F0921DE0ED6A41BE5DC618@[] (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

--On 29. Juni 2009 08:32:29 +0900 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:

> Yes, it intends to assign an identifier string not only numeric
> large object identifier. The identifier string can be qualified
> with a certain namespace as follows.
> E.g)
>  SELECT lo_open('my_picture01', x'40000'::int);
>  SELECT lo_create('pg_temp.my_musid02');
> In the later case, the new largeobject will be reclaimed after
> the session closed due to the temporary namespace.

I'm not sure about the usefulness of this. While having an identifier for a 
LO is nice, i believe most users store additional metadata about objects 
within their own tables anyways, linking the LO there. Also i doubt there 
is much need for temporary large objects (at least, i have no idea about 

It might be interesting to dig into your proposal deeper in conjunction 
with TOAST (you've already mentioned this TODO). Having serial access with 
a nice interface into TOAST would be eliminating the need for 
pg_largeobject completely (i'm not a big fan of this one-big-system-table 
approach the old LO interface currently is).



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-06-29 18:53:07
Subject: Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2009-06-29 18:41:47
Subject: Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group