Tom Lane wrote: >Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >> Mikheev, Vadim writes: >>> Yes, there should be
permissionchecking - I'll add it later (in 7.1) >>> if no one else. > >> Should be simple enough. Is this okay: >
>Actually,I think a more interesting question is "should CHECKPOINT >have permission restrictions? If so, what should
theybe?" > >A quite relevant precedent is that Unix systems (at least the ones >I've used) do not restrict who can call
sync().
What about DoS attacks? What would be the effect of someone's setting
off an infinite loop of CHECKPOINTs?
--
Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP: 1024R/32B8FAA1: 97 EA 1D 47 72 3F 28 47 6B 7E 39 CC 56 E4 C1 47
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
======================================== "Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For
Iacknowledge my transgressions; and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and
donethis evil in thy sight..." Psalms 51:2-4