From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Truncate Triggers |
Date: | 2008-01-26 18:27:23 |
Message-ID: | 8720.1201372043@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Of course, the last time this went around the argument was that we
> shouldn't add alot of extra code until we actually needed to, while at
> the same time we shouldn't use up the few remaining bits we have. The
> fact that this makes for an impossible situation seems to have been
> lost.
No, it hasn't been forgotten at all. Whenever we have to cross that
bridge, we'll do so. The questions being asked here are about whether
an adequate case has been made for adding *user-visible* complexity,
not about nitty little details of internal representation.
There are also some compatibility concerns involved. If we add
grantable privileges for TRUNCATE and/or DDL operations, then GRANT ALL
ON TABLE suddenly conveys a whole lot more privilege than it did before.
This could lead to unpleasant surprises in security-sensitive
operations. One could also put forward the argument that it's a direct
violation of the SQL spec, which after all does specify exactly what
privileges ALL is supposed to grant.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ivan Voras | 2008-01-26 18:32:35 | Re: Simple row serialization? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-26 18:13:33 | Re: Truncate Triggers |