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 "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().
What about DoS attacks? What would be the effect of someone's setting
off an infinite loop of CHECKPOINTs?
--
Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP: 1024R/32B8FAA1: 97 EA 1D 47 72 3F 28 47 6B 7E 39 CC 56 E4 C1 47
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
========================================
"Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me
from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions; and
my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only,
have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight..."
Psalms 51:2-4
