Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Uh, that seems like it adds extra complexity just for this single case.
Yeah. I've dropped the idea personally -- the suggestion that the table
owner can provide a SECURITY DEFINER procedure to do the TRUNCATE if he
wants to allow others to do it seems to me to cover the problem.
> Why don't we allow TRUNCATE by non-owners only if no triggers are
> defined, and if they are defined, we throw an error and mention it is
> because triggers/contraints exist?
I don't think we should put weird special cases in the rights checking
to allow this -- that's usually a recipe for introducing unintended
security holes.
regards, tom lane