Okay, okay, complaint withdrawn. Peter, would you commit that
permission check?
regards, tom lane
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> > > What about DoS attacks? What would be the effect of
> > > someone's setting off an infinite loop of CHECKPOINTs?
> >
> > Don't we have bigger DoS attacks? Certainly SELECT cash_out(1) is a
> > much bigger one.
>
> I've missed point - cas
> > What about DoS attacks? What would be the effect of
> > someone's setting off an infinite loop of CHECKPOINTs?
>
> Don't we have bigger DoS attacks? Certainly SELECT cash_out(1) is a
> much bigger one.
I've missed point - cash_out(1) is bug that should be fixed.
Any reason to add yet anot
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Mikheev, Vadim writes:
> >>> Yes, there should be permission checking - I'll add it later (in 7.1)
> >>> if no one else.
> >
> >> Should be simple enough. Is this okay:
> >
> >Actually, I think a more interesti
> Actually, I think a more interesting question is "should CHECKPOINT
> have permission restrictions? If so, what should they be?"
>
> A quite relevant precedent is that Unix systems (at least the ones
> I've used) do not restrict who can call sync().
Checkpoints 1. affect entire system, 2. inc
> > Yes, there should be permission checking - I'll add it
> > later (in 7.1) if no one else.
>
> Should be simple enough. Is this okay:
I think yes - please apply.
Vadim
Tom Lane wrote:
>Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Mikheev, Vadim writes:
>>> Yes, there should be permission checking - I'll add it later (in 7.1)
>>> if no one else.
>
>> Should be simple enough. Is this okay:
>
>Actually, I think a more interesting question is "sh
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mikheev, Vadim writes:
>> Yes, there should be permission checking - I'll add it later (in 7.1)
>> if no one else.
> Should be simple enough. Is this okay:
Actually, I think a more interesting question is "should CHECKPOINT
have permission restrict
Mikheev, Vadim writes:
> Yes, there should be permission checking - I'll add it later (in 7.1)
> if no one else.
Should be simple enough. Is this okay:
Index: utility.c
===
RCS file: /home/projects/pgsql/cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/
> >Contrary to what the submitted documentation claims, there is no
> >permission checking done on the CHECKPOINT command.
> Should there be?
>
> Vadim seemed to indicate that he was going to make that restriction.
> Perhaps I misunderstood.
Yes, there should be permission checking - I'l
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>Contrary to what the submitted documentation claims, there is no
>permission checking done on the CHECKPOINT command. Should there be?
Vadim seemed to indicate that he was going to make that restriction.
Perhaps I misunderstood.
If it's too late to make the change
11 matches
Mail list logo
