Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0002282246340.3511-100000@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Karel Zak - Zakkr writes: > This patch add to current code NOCREATETABLE and NOLOCKTABLE feature: > > CREATE USER username > [ WITH > [ SYSID uid ] > [ PASSWORD 'password' ] ] > [ CREATEDB | NOCREATEDB ] [ CREATEUSER | NOCREATEUSER ] > -> [ CREATETABLE | NOCREATETABLE ] [ LOCKTABLE | NOLOCKTABLE ] > ...etc. IMHO, the syntax for create user is a hell and a half. Adding more keywords in the current fashion is a dead end. (Note: you have to remember the order in which the user "features" have to be entered.) I might as well propose that now, I'd like to see a syntax like CREATE USER name ( password = 'xxx', sysid = 99, superuser = true, ... ); That's much more flexible and extensible. The old syntax could coexist with this too. Regarding your two new features: If you disallow table locking you might as well tell users not to use the database. People need locks to operate a relational database. You will end up disabling the entire transaction mechanism if you want this to work properly. There already is a sufficient amount of checks for users not claiming exlusive locks on tables they shouldn't. Disallowing table creation might seem like a decent idea, but if at all, it should go into the grant/revoke realm. Incidentally, this is quite at odds with the SQL idea of how things should work, and I had hoped we could get there some day. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: