Re: Proposing COPY .. WITH PERMISSIVE

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: dinesh kumar <dineshkumar02(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposing COPY .. WITH PERMISSIVE
Date: 2015-11-12 12:35:57
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSOsgit3+cenj1dCeWOK-RAHrw6eA=XJuKoG0_+TyxXew@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:43 PM, dinesh kumar wrote:
> We can also use "PROGRAM 'cat > Output.csv' " to achieve this "NO READ
> ACCESS", since the program is always running as a instance owner.
> Let me know your inputs and thoughts.

That's one way. And as PROGRAM presents the advantage to open the file
before the COPY has begun processing any tuples, the umask would be
set before writing any data to it, hence why complicating COPY with a
new option while we already have something to apply restrictions to
the output file? It seems that this patch is just an unnecessary
complication, and I doubt that we would want to change the default
behavior of 644 that has been here for ages.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2015-11-12 12:37:26 LLVM miscompiles numeric.c access to short numeric var headers
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2015-11-12 12:16:16 Re: Proposal: "Causal reads" mode for load balancing reads without stale data