* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 10:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> There are way too many table privilege bits already; to add more you > >> need something a lot stronger than a "might be nice" argument. > > > People use TRUNCATE whatever we say. If you force people to be table > > owners or superusers you merely restrict their security options. > > By that argument you could justify a separate privilege bit for anything > at all, eg, each sub-variant of ALTER TABLE. Please present an actual > argument why TRUNCATE should get its own bit.
I've done this already, and continue to feel that TRUNCATE should have
its own bit. There are many cases where you want a user to be able to
truncate a table but not alter its structure. TRUNCATE is not a
DDL-type statement, those can and should be reserved to the owner.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
