On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> operations to take vastly longer than they're expected to. So giving
> away the right to manipulate indexes is at the very least an opening
> to denial-of-service problems.
Yes, but this is what sysadmin is for, isn'it?
> In any case, what you are really suggesting here is that we offer a
> grantable "right to create/drop indexes" on a *table*. Dangerous or
> not, it could be useful. But it has nothing that I can see to do with
> a notion of ownership of the indexes themselves; there's still no visible
> reason to consider the indexes to have ownership independent of the
> table they're on.
Partially agreed. It seems to be that such behaviour resembles MySQL one.
How about index on a view?
Thanks for a clue anyway.
WBR, Yury Bokhoncovich, Senior System Administrator, NOC of F1 Group.
Phone: +7 (3832) 106228, ext.140, E-mail: byg(at)center-f1(dot)ru(dot)
Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Alexey Slynko||Date: 2002-03-12 12:18:35|
|Subject: JDBC arrays|
|Previous:||From: Paul Eggert||Date: 2002-03-12 05:59:30|
|Subject: Re: support for POSIX 1003.1-2001 hosts|