Re: Proposing COPY .. WITH PERMISSIVE

From: dinesh kumar <dineshkumar02(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposing COPY .. WITH PERMISSIVE
Date: 2015-07-24 00:15:50
Message-ID: CALnrH7qyM0dpXMfdUuhxsZernd+0X8_o5nWvqgZtp8jNrs-jGw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:19 PM, dinesh kumar <dineshkumar02(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > Sorry for my unclear description about the proposal.
> >
> > "WITH PERMISSIVE" is equal to our existing behavior. That is, chmod=644
> on
> > the created files.
> >
> > If User don't specify "PERMISSIVE" as an option, then the chmod=600 on
> > created files. In this way, we can restrict the other users from reading
> > these files.
>
> There might be some benefit in allowing the user to choose the
> permissions, but (1) I doubt we want to change the default behavior
> and (2) providing only two options doesn't seem flexible enough.
>
>
Thanks for your inputs Robert.

1) IMO, we will keep the exiting behavior as it is.

2) As the actual proposal talks about the permissions of group/others. So,
we can add few options as below to the WITH clause

COPY
..
..
WITH
[
NO
(READ,WRITE)
PERMISSION TO
(GROUP,OTHERS)
]

Best Regards,
Dinesh
manojadinesh.blogspot.com

> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kouhei Kaigai 2015-07-24 00:27:33 Re: fdw_scan_tlist for foreign table scans breaks EPQ testing, doesn't it?
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2015-07-23 23:55:55 Re: TABLESAMPLE patch is really in pretty sad shape