From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Re: Why READ ONLY transactions? |
Date: | 2003-07-30 22:22:55 |
Message-ID: | 25296.1059603775@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> writes:
>> It's not intended to be a security measure, and I would strongly
>> resist any attempt to make it so along the lines you propose.
> Intended or not, it does work.
No, you just haven't thought of a way to get around it yet. When you do
think of one, you'll be wanting us to contort the GUC system to plug the
loophole. We've already got a horrid mess in there for the LOG_XXX
variables, and I don't want to add more.
I'm not objecting to the idea of being able to make users read-only.
I'm objecting to using GUC for it. Send in a patch that, say, adds a
bool column to pg_shadow, and I'll be happy.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jean-Michel POURE | 2003-07-30 22:51:50 | Re: Draft #5 -- radically re-written |
Previous Message | Sean Chittenden | 2003-07-30 21:40:05 | Re: [PATCH] Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Why READ ONLY transactions? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sean Chittenden | 2003-07-30 23:07:59 | Re: [PATCHES] [PATCH] Re: Why READ ONLY transactions? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-07-30 21:59:58 | Re: Warning for undefined cursor |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-30 22:58:10 | Re: ruleutils with pretty-print option |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-07-30 21:49:47 | Re: hexadecimal to decimal |