From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 |
Date: | 2006-06-27 08:08:35 |
Message-ID: | 1151395715.2691.1623.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-06-27 08:40:05 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD | 2006-06-27 08:04:25 | Re: [PATCHES] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD | 2006-06-27 08:57:15 | Re: [PATCHES] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD | 2006-06-27 08:04:25 | Re: [PATCHES] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2 |