| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, dinesh kumar <dineshkumar02(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposing COPY .. WITH PERMISSIVE |
| Date: | 2015-11-16 02:27:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqT6sZ8qRKup_cDiQ07Mv1kMMOmeqOnyfmHmA-fBuOzm5Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 9/2/15 4:19 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>> maybe - but having a fixed "default" is very different from baking a
>> classic unix permission concept of user/group/world^others into actual
>> DDL or into a COPY option. The proposed syntax might make some sense to
>> a admin used to a unix style system but it is likely utterly
>> incomprehensible to somebody who is used to (windows style) ACLs.
>>
>> I dont have a good answer on what to do else atm but I dont think we
>> should embedded traditional/historical unix permission models in our
>> grammer unless really really needed...
>
> The user can just create a directory with appropriate permissions and
> copy the files there. I don't really see why COPY needs to know about
> all this.
In short, it seems that this patch is better rejected. And I am
planning to do so if there are no complaints.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2015-11-16 02:40:34 | Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2015-11-16 02:25:36 | Re: Minor comment improvement to create_foreignscan_plan |