| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Christensen <david(dot)christensen(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DELETE CASCADE |
| Date: | 2021-06-03 23:53:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZv7nzHg9gXbFB-KN2CcbxcYfsD05qVS_d6qA-63n7CUQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:29 PM Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> Surely you mean if we don't have DELETE permission on the referencing
> table? I don't see why we need to be a member of the table owner role.
>
I would reverse the question - why does this feature need to allow the more
broad DELETE permission instead of just limiting it to the table owner? The
latter matches the required permission for the existing cascade feature
that this is extending.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-06-03 23:54:48 | Re: Move pg_attribute.attcompression to earlier in struct for reduced size? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-03 23:30:55 | Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW |