Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 13:06 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I don't see where the problem is here.
> In your last post you said it was necessary to use ONLY to address the
> required partitions and so setup would be weird. I am showing that this
> is not required and the setup is smooth.
Peter is right and you are wrong: this setup STILL needs ONLY, unless
permissions are in sync with inheritance, ie, every child has the union
of its parents' permissions. It would work at least as well under
Peter's proposal as with the existing behavior.
> The main point though is that this should not be a system-wide setting.
No, it should be a flat-out behavioral change, no "setting" anywhere.
I have never seen an example where the current behavior is actually
useful, because of precisely the point that you'd have to use ONLY to
avoid permissions errors unless you have granted permissions on all
children of each parent.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
