From: | "Ewald Geschwinde" <egeschwinde(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Nick Barr" <nicky(at)chuckie(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Truncate Permission |
Date: | 2007-06-11 07:40:08 |
Message-ID: | cf42ed390706110040h39f641ebs5da395699bd3f18f@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Yes, there is a use-case for it. If you don't have triggers or
> transactional concerns on the table and you want users to be able to
> truncate tables while not allowing them to do things like change the
> table structure. I proposed a patch a while ago to implement a seperate
> permission for truncate but it was turned down because of concern over
> using the few remaining bits in the ACL structure.
>
>
>
I second this proposal
My problem is that some users don't have access to change the structure but
they wanted to delete all data from the table
they try truncate - does not work because not the owner
so they make a delete from a really big table
So I would like to see a truncate permission - makes some things easier in
my opinion
--
Ewald Geschwinde
http://www.postgresql.at
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2007-06-11 07:43:42 | Re: So, why isn't *every* buildfarm member failing ecpg right now? |
Previous Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2007-06-11 06:27:48 | Re: Controlling Load Distributed Checkpoints |