From: | Yury Bokhoncovich <byg(at)center-f1(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes |
Date: | 2002-03-12 06:08:14 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0203121201460.13900-100000@panda.center-f1.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Hello!
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
[skip]
> operations to take vastly longer than they're expected to. So giving
> away the right to manipulate indexes is at the very least an opening
> to denial-of-service problems.
Yes, but this is what sysadmin is for, isn'it?
> In any case, what you are really suggesting here is that we offer a
> grantable "right to create/drop indexes" on a *table*. Dangerous or
> not, it could be useful. But it has nothing that I can see to do with
> a notion of ownership of the indexes themselves; there's still no visible
> reason to consider the indexes to have ownership independent of the
> table they're on.
Partially agreed. It seems to be that such behaviour resembles MySQL one.
How about index on a view?
Thanks for a clue anyway.
--
WBR, Yury Bokhoncovich, Senior System Administrator, NOC of F1 Group.
Phone: +7 (3832) 106228, ext.140, E-mail: byg(at)center-f1(dot)ru(dot)
Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexey Slynko | 2002-03-12 12:18:35 | JDBC arrays |
Previous Message | Paul Eggert | 2002-03-12 05:59:30 | Re: support for POSIX 1003.1-2001 hosts |