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
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Noah Misch||Date: 2013-01-10 02:59:09|
|Subject: Re: Index build temp files|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2013-01-10 02:45:36|
|Subject: Re: lazy_vacuum_heap()'s removal of HEAPTUPLE_DEAD tuples|