On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 11:24:28AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> I an horribly scared that this will be used as a "performance boost" for > >> normal use. I would at least like to see some restrictions that make it > >> harder to mis-use. Perhaps restrict to superuser? > > > Certainly restrict to table owner. > > I can see the argument for superuser-only: decisions about data > integrity tradeoffs should be reserved to the DBA, who is the one who > will get blamed if the database loses data, no matter how stupid his > users are. > > But I'm not wedded to that. I could live with table-owner.
I dislike restricting to super-user, and to some extent even table owner. The reason is that if you have some automated batch process, you don't want that process running as a superuser. Also, it is often awkward to require that the user running that batch own the table. I'd much rather see this as a grantable permission on the table. (The same is true with truncate, btw). This way, if a DBA knew he could trust a specific role, he could allow for these operations on a specific table. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
