On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 09:15:52AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Personally, I do like the idea of a user-level 'copy server-side files'
> permission that could be granted to reduce the need for things to run as
> superuser.
There is one important point though: The server copying things is
serio
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 09:15:52AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Personally, I do like the idea of a user-level 'copy server-side files'
>> permission that could be granted to reduce the need for things to run as
>> superuser.
> There is one important point thoug
Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bernard was also objecting to the overhead of pushing the data down a
> TCP pipe when it's already available locally, I think.. I didn't find
> any real difference there when I compared the two methods, though.
What makes you think it's necessarily ava
* Stephan Szabo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Bernard wrote:
>
> > My suggestions for improving the COPY command so it can be used by
> > non-superuser users would be as follows:
>
> If you want to do this without switching to a different UNIX user, can't
> you already writ
Bernard wrote:
Certainly supporting COPY via STDIN within the java code seems preferable.
Why do you say that? That option does not exist because the Postgresql
JDBC driver does not support it.
If you raise this on pgsql-jdbc (so far, I haven't seen anything on that
list from you at all..)
Sean,
Very diplomatic way to get the message across without offending anyone
except the bastards.
Capatalism is good for development. But it has to be kept in check as
to not destroy the basis on which it once grew and provided fair
chances for anyone to participate. Who is keeping it in check to
Republicans, or Conservatives --- unless they have failed to
>speak out against those who usurp their identity.)
>
>Sean
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -
>From: "Bernard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Greg Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc
(http://phppgadmin.org/) and have come to some compromise.
Dump the vinegar, try the honey.
Sean
- Original Message -
From: "Bernard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sean Utt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ;
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [BUGS] BUG #1830: Non-super-user must be able to copy
from a
Greg,
The desired COPY FILE functionality for a local non-superuser user
would require a local file. That file is available locally.
A suggested
This is silly.
The bug being reported is that a non-super-user can't copy from a server
side file with JDBC.
There are a jillion (no, really, a jillion) other ways to accomplish this,
because as is the Perl motto, there is more than one way to do it.
If this is really so important, Bernard
Greg,
The desired COPY FILE functionality for a local non-superuser user
would require a local file. That file is available locally.
A suggested workaround COPY with STDIN would involve the TCP pipe.
This does of course have the support for remote uploads.
But I am not currently interested in re
Andrew
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 04:17:16 -, you wrote:
>> In the majority of bulk load cases, the input exists as a file already
>
>But not necessarily on the server.
True. But I am concerned with the server, and there I want that things
are handled on the server, not on the client.
>
>> The use
Tom Lane wrote:
> Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>It sounds like what you really want is the ability to grant something
>>like FILE access without granting all superuser rights? Sounds like a
>>feature request, not a bug, to me :-)
>
>
> AFAICT, the complaint really boils down to t
Tom Lane wrote:
> What is the story on JDBC COPY support, anyway? I'm aware that there's
> an unofficial patch for that, but I'm not clear about why it's not made
> it into the accepted version.
I didn't like the whole "here is an undifferentiated stream of data"
approach -- there were some JDBC
Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It sounds like what you really want is the ability to grant something
> like FILE access without granting all superuser rights? Sounds like a
> feature request, not a bug, to me :-)
AFAICT, the complaint really boils down to there not being any support
f
[ A bit off topic, but... ]
Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And please fix your anti-spam system so it doesn't send me a "you must
> jump through these hoops to send me email" message every time please!
It's standard policy on the PG lists that we boot subscribers who
auto-reply to li
On 2005-08-19, Bernard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oliver and interested list members:
>
> In the majority of bulk load cases, the input exists as a file already
But not necessarily on the server.
> The use of psql in our case requires the launching of an external
> process from within the runni
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Bernard wrote:
> My suggestions for improving the COPY command so it can be used by
> non-superuser users would be as follows:
If you want to do this without switching to a different UNIX user, can't
you already write a small SECURITY DEFINER function as a superuser that
doe
Bernard wrote:
> 2) Split up security risk calculations between the two directions "TO"
> and "FROM" and relax security. Look at MySQL for clues. The
> application developer can manage security on file system permission
> level.
I looked at MySQL's docs briefly and its behaviour seems almost the
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 10:16:29AM +1200, Bernard wrote:
> Bruno and interested list members
>
> I want to follow what is suggested here. How are STDIN and STDOUT
> addressed when using the JDBC driver?
>
> Or in other words where can I write or receive megabytes of data?
I don't know how JDBC d
"Oliver Jowett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Bernard wrote:
>
>> The majority of JDBC users trying to bulk load tables would not want
>> to send the data through their connection. This connection is designed
>> to send commands and to transfer only as much data as necessary and a
Oliver and interested list members:
In the majority of bulk load cases, the input exists as a file already
and cannot be had without reading from that file. So the writing of
the file does not count as an additional processing overhead.
The use of psql in our case requires the launching of an ext
Bernard wrote:
> Oliver and interested list members:
[...]
And please fix your anti-spam system so it doesn't send me a "you must
jump through these hoops to send me email" message every time please!
(usual cc: to poster removed for that reason)
-O
---(end of broadcast)
Bernard wrote:
> This difference of performance is the main reason for the COPY
> command, and this is also the reason why bulk loading through the JDBC
> interface will never match the performance of the COPY fith files
> command.
In some admittedly unscientific tests I see less than 10% differe
Oliver and interested list members:
I was referring to the majority of users wanting to "bulk" load tables
not to the majority of all or whatever users who may or may not know
or care about the difference in performance between INSERT and COPY.
This difference of performance is the main reason fo
Bernard wrote:
> The majority of JDBC users trying to bulk load tables would not want
> to send the data through their connection. This connection is designed
> to send commands and to transfer only as much data as necessary and as
> little as possible.
I don't understand why this is true at all
Oliver and interested list members:
Thanks for the related information.
The majority of JDBC users trying to bulk load tables would not want
to send the data through their connection. This connection is designed
to send commands and to transfer only as much data as necessary and as
little as poss
Bernard wrote:
> I want to follow what is suggested here. How are STDIN and STDOUT
> addressed when using the JDBC driver?
The current JDBC driver doesn't support this mode of COPY.
There was some work done in the past to support this but it never got to
the point of making it into the official
Bruno and interested list members
I want to follow what is suggested here. How are STDIN and STDOUT
addressed when using the JDBC driver?
Or in other words where can I write or receive megabytes of data?
I would not want to append this to the String of a SQL Statement in
Java because that is a S
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 09:22:16 +0100,
Bernard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The following bug has been logged online:
This isn't a bug and you really should have asked this question on
another list. I am moving the discussion over to the general list.
>
> Bug reference: 1830
> Logged
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 1830
Logged by: Bernard
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.0.3
Operating system: Linux RedHat 9
Description:Non-super-user must be able to copy from a file
Details:
On the attempt to bulk l
31 matches
Mail list logo
