From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Index build temp files |
Date: | 2013-01-10 02:48:23 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJHZPa74iwP0cUgTKM-qW9m0BDgHefNfF7_m=jpGDYtsA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10 January 2013 02:36, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 03:20:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What would people think of just eliminating the access-permissions
>> checks involved in temp_tablespaces? It would likely be appropriate to
>> change temp_tablespaces from USERSET to SUSET if we did so. So
>> essentially the worldview would become that the DBA is responsible for
>> the temp_tablespaces setting, not individual users.
>
> Allowing that the new behavior could be clearer, that gain is too small to
> justify the application compatibility hazard of making temp_tablespaces SUSET.
> I don't see something we can do here that clearly improves things overall.
Can't we do both behaviours? Skip permissions if using a value form
.conf, but don't if the user sets it themselves.
Having it USERSET allows different settings for different roles, which
is useful.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2013-01-10 02:59:09 | Re: Index build temp files |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-01-10 02:45:36 | Re: lazy_vacuum_heap()'s removal of HEAPTUPLE_DEAD tuples |