From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, tshipley(at)deru(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: feature proposal ... |
Date: | 2005-09-22 03:09:38 |
Message-ID: | 23972.1127358578@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
>> Writing a file on the server requires significant privilege, including
>> access to the server itself so you can retrieve the results.
> But we also do COPY to STDOUT which requires no special privileges on
> the server.
Currently, we have a special privilege type about creating temporary
tables, which I think also restricts creating temporary views --- but
now that I think about it, it's not obvious why that should follow.
The only good argument I can see for restricting temp table creation
is that one might eat up large amounts of server disk space with a temp
table, and of course this argument doesn't apply to a temp view. So we
could refute this argument by just not making the permission check for
CREATE TEMP VIEW.
> Incidentally, if we are going to allow copy out from views, it would be
> nice and orthogonal to allow copy in too. Hasn't there been some talk
> about making automatically writeable views?
Sure, but until we actually have automatically writable views, it's a
bit premature to worry about that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-09-22 03:10:04 | Re: 2 forks for md5? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-09-22 01:10:13 | 2 forks for md5? |