| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Setuid functions |
| Date: | 2001-06-24 11:55:22 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0106241344560.900-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Philip Warner writes:
> >If someone wants to implement them, be my guest. I originally needed them
> >for fixing the RI permission problems, but they couldn't be used for that
> >after all.
>
> They were part of a larger permissions overhaul that Jan proposed - IIRC,
> at the time you objected, citing your prior proposal. Are you now saying
> you are happy with Jan's original proposal? Or just the setuid functions?
The idea of setuid functions has surely existed much longer than that
proposal, and the implementation is more or less "obvious" for someone
knowledgeable.
The proposal as a whole was rather vague and went amiss of the goal to
become SQL compliant, IIRC.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-06-24 11:56:13 | Re: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2001-06-24 11:37:52 | Re: stuck spin lock with many concurrent users |