On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:19 PM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This patch went through the last two commit fests without any noticeable
> activity. As far as I can see, judging from the discussion, there isn't a
> single opinion everyone would agree with, except that simply introdu
> On Mon, 21 May 2018 at 15:46, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> > On 19 May 2018 at 01:13, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> I'm not entirely sure about the varlena suggestion, seems like that
> >> would change a great deal more code and be slower, though per
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On 19 May 2018 at 01:13, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> I'm not entirely sure about the varlena suggestion, seems like that
>> would change a great deal more code and be slower, though perhaps not
>> enough to matter; it's not like our aclitem arrays
On 19 May 2018 at 01:13, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> I'm not entirely sure about the varlena suggestion, seems like that
> would change a great deal more code and be slower, though perhaps not
> enough to matter; it's not like our aclitem arrays are exactly optimized
> for speed today.
I don't actua
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I'm not a big fan of it- what happens when we introduce something else
> which would seem like it'd fall under 'maintain' but provides some
> capability that maybe it wouldn't be good for users who could only run
> the above commands to have?
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > That seems like an awful lot of work to handle what's still going to be
> > a pretty small set of permissions. Every permission we add is going to
> > have to be enforced in the C code,
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> That seems like an awful lot of work to handle what's still going to be
> a pretty small set of permissions. Every permission we add is going to
> have to be enforced in the C code, and it'll break applications to some
> extent to treat the situa
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:56 PM, David G. Johnston
> wrote:
>> I made an argument for an "ANALYZE" grant a little while back, and it kinda
>> leads one to want one for VACUUM as well.
> Yeah, and FWIW, I think that's a totally reasonable request, as is
> this one. The prob
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:56 PM, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Isaac Morland
> wrote:
>> One question I would have is: what proposals exist or have existed for
>> additional privilege bits? How much pressure is there to use some of the
>> remaining bits? I actually l
Thanks for pointing me to this. I also did a search in the archives and
found a 2006 thread on TRUNCATE, VACUUM, and ANALYZE privileges:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20060105140406.GX6026%40ns.snowman.net
I'm not seeing much else. As far as I can see, the only demand for using
more
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Isaac Morland
wrote:
>
> One question I would have is: what proposals exist or have existed for
> additional privilege bits? How much pressure is there to use some of the
> remaining bits? I actually looked into the history of the permission bits
> and found th
Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I think I was unclear in a
couple of places so I think my proposal may have appeared worse than it is.
Details below:
On 18 March 2018 at 20:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Isaac Morland writes:
> > The original idea was to allow access to REFRESH MATERIALIZED
Isaac Morland writes:
> The original idea was to allow access to REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW to be a
> grantable permission, rather than being reserved to the table owner.
I'm not really on board with making that a separately grantable
permission. You can do what you need today by having the matvi
This is a proposal for a Postgres feature enhancement. I've attached a
preliminary patch. However, the patch is extremely preliminary: there is no
documentation or testing change, and I think I actually want to make the
change itself in a different way from what this 2-line patch does.
Right now I
14 matches
Mail list logo
