From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Directory/File Access Permissions for COPY and Generic File Access Functions |
Date: | 2014-10-29 16:43:59 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaW=OBeV0FJ5MvuXmR7Adkk9DdW8sY6KJ0-U+Rbz0jm5g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Adam Brightwell
<adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert,
>
>> To articular my own concerns perhaps a bit better, there are two major
>> things I don't like about the whole DIRALIAS proposal. Number one,
>> you're creating this SQL object whose name is not actually used for
>> anything other than manipulating the alias you created. The users are
>> still operating on pathnames. That's awfully strange.
>
> That's an interesting point and I don't disagree that it seems a little
> strange. However, isn't this approach similar if not the same (other than
> operating on path names) as with some other objects, specifically rules and
> policies?
Hmm. Maybe. Somehow it feels different to me. A rule or policy is
something internal to the system, and you have to identify it somehow.
A directory, though, already has a name, so giving it an additional
dummy name seems strange. But, you do have a point.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-29 16:46:55 | Re: Failback to old master |
Previous Message | Maeldron T. | 2014-10-29 16:43:21 | Re: Failback to old master |