Re: [HACKERS] "Freezing" per-role settings

2010-09-07 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Davis writes: > On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 13:30 -0700, David Fetter wrote: >> Offhand, I'm not thinking of past examples of mutating/disappearing >> GUC that people would want to freeze, nor of a new GUC that would >> negate or substantially alter such freezing. What have I missed? > It just se

Re: [HACKERS] "Freezing" per-role settings

2010-09-07 Thread Jeff Davis
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 14:49 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > There are two problems at hand here, as I see it: the more general > problem of "freezing" settings for a given role, and the very specific > capability of guaranteeing read-only-ness, which could have large > implications in, for example, da

Re: [HACKERS] "Freezing" per-role settings

2010-09-07 Thread David Fetter
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 02:43:12PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 13:30 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > Offhand, I'm not thinking of past examples of mutating/disappearing > > GUC that people would want to freeze, nor of a new GUC that would > > negate or substantially alter such f

Re: [HACKERS] "Freezing" per-role settings

2010-09-07 Thread Jeff Davis
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 13:30 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > Offhand, I'm not thinking of past examples of mutating/disappearing > GUC that people would want to freeze, nor of a new GUC that would > negate or substantially alter such freezing. What have I missed? If you'll allow me to change my argum

Re: [HACKERS] "Freezing" per-role settings

2010-09-07 Thread David Fetter
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 12:41:51PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 11:39 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > We'd like to create a role called read_only, with eponymous > > capability. > > Seems useful. Great to hear :) > > If so, is it more > > DCL-ish, or more DDL-ish? > > I don't

Re: [HACKERS] "Freezing" per-role settings

2010-09-07 Thread Jeff Davis
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 11:39 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > We'd like to create a role called read_only, with eponymous > capability. Seems useful. > If so, is it more > DCL-ish, or more DDL-ish? I don't like the idea of a security model relying on the ability (or lack thereof) to set GUCs. Imagine

[HACKERS] "Freezing" per-role settings

2010-09-07 Thread David Fetter
Folks, I noticed a little unimplemented feature which I suspect a lot of people would find useful, namely the ability to "freeze" certain settings for a role. Example: We'd like to create a role called read_only, with eponymous capability. At the moment, we can't do what's below, but I'd like to