Tom Lane wrote:
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon Riggs said:
Following Andrew's concerns, I'd also note that ALTER TABLE requires a
much higher level of privilege to operate than does COPY. That sounds
like it will make things more secure, but all it does is open up the
administrative rights, since full ownership rights must be obtained
merely to load data.
My concern is more about making plain that this is for special operations,
not normal operations. Or maybe I have misunderstood the purpose.
Rephrase that as "full ownership rights must be obtained to load data in
a way that requires dropping any existing indexes and locking out other
users of the table". I don't think the use-case for this will be very
large for non-owners, or indeed even for owners except during initial
table creation; and so I don't think the above argument is strong.
Those restrictions aren't true of Bruce's proposed drop and
delete/truncate recovery modes, are they?
People do crazy things in pursuit of performance. Illustration: a few
months ago I was instrumenting an app (based on MySQL/ISAM) and I
noticed that under load it simply didn't update the inventory properly -
of 1000 orders placed within a few seconds it might reduce inventory by
3 or 4. I reported this and they shrugged their shoulders and said
"well, we'd have to lock the table and that would slow everything down
...".
I just want to be sure we aren't providing a footgun. "Oh, just set
recovery mode to delete. It won't make any difference unless you crash
and you'll run faster."
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
