Re: [PATCHES] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1151395715.2691.1623.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 ("Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCHES] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:04 +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD wrote: > Simon wrote: > > Suggest that we prevent write operations on Frozen tables by revoking > all INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE rights held, then enforcing a check during > GRANT to prevent them being re-enabled. Superusers would need to check > every time. If we dont do this, then we will have two contradictory > states marked in the catalog - privilges saying Yes and freezing saying > No. > > No, I'd not mess with the permissions and return a different error when > trying to > modify a frozen table. (It would also be complicated to unfreeze after > create database) > We should make it clear, that freezing is no replacement for revoke. That was with a mind to performance. Checking every INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE statement to see if they are being done against a frozen table seems like a waste. There would still be a specific error message for frozen tables, just on the GRANT rather than the actual DML statements. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: