From: | Shane Wegner <shane(at)cm(dot)nu> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Permissions for large-object comments |
Date: | 2001-08-25 00:48:18 |
Message-ID: | 20010824174818.A14087@cm.nu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 02:45:40AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > Shane Wegner <shane(at)cm(dot)nu> writes:
> > > test=> \lo_unlink 89803
> > > ERROR: pg_description: Permission denied.
> >
> > Hmm. Maybe those client-side comment manipulations in psql aren't
> > such a hot idea. I know I never tested them as non-superuser :-(
>
> :-(
>
> > Shane, try that from a superuser Postgres userid. Meanwhile,
> > it's back to the drawing board for us.
>
> I'm not sure about the future of the large objects, so I'm less eager to
> invent a new mechanism. I'm open to ideas, however.
Well as I'm not a developer, this it out of my league.
However, if the future of large objects is in question, is
there a better way I should be storing large chunks of
binary data in the database. The text column doesn't seem
to support it.
Regards,
Shane
--
Shane Wegner: shane(at)cm(dot)nu
http://www.cm.nu/~shane/
PGP: 1024D/FFE3035D
A0ED DAC4 77EC D674 5487
5B5C 4F89 9A4E FFE3 035D
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-25 04:37:09 | Re: backend dies on my aggregate function in 7.1.2 |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-08-25 00:45:40 | Re: Permissions for large-object comments |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-08-25 01:36:57 | MD5 removal of int64 code |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-08-25 00:45:40 | Re: Permissions for large-object comments |