* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > A LOT of catalog bulk..? Am I missing something here? > > What I'm missing is what actual benefit we get from spending the extra > space. (No, I don't believe that changing the defaults is something > that users commonly will or should do; it's certainly not the case to > optimize for.)
Typical database *users*? No. A DBA or SA? Certainly, and we already provide a way to do that, in part. Supporting it for the 'default defaults' would be nice as would support for default privileges for schemas (rather than just objects that go *in* schemas). Certainly a big one that people get caught by is our default of execute to public on functions.. Most of our privileges are set up as minimal access to others, functions are an oddity in that regard. Rather than fight the battle of what the default *should* be for functions, we could just give the DBA the ability to configure it for their database. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature