On 07/25/2015 03:38 AM, dinesh kumar wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com > <mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:15 PM, dinesh kumar > <dineshkuma...@gmail.com <mailto:dineshkuma...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Robert Haas > <robertmh...@gmail.com <mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:19 PM, dinesh kumar > <dineshkuma...@gmail.com <mailto:dineshkuma...@gmail.com>> > >> wrote: > >> > Sorry for my unclear description about the proposal. > >> > > >> > "WITH PERMISSIVE" is equal to our existing behavior. That is, > chmod=644 > >> > on > >> > the created files. > >> > > >> > If User don't specify "PERMISSIVE" as an option, then the chmod=600 > on > >> > created files. In this way, we can restrict the other users from > reading > >> > these files. > >> > >> There might be some benefit in allowing the user to choose the > >> permissions, but (1) I doubt we want to change the default behavior > >> and (2) providing only two options doesn't seem flexible enough. > >> > > > > Thanks for your inputs Robert. > > > > 1) IMO, we will keep the exiting behavior as it is. > > > > 2) As the actual proposal talks about the permissions of group/others. > So, > > we can add few options as below to the WITH clause > > > > COPY > > .. > > .. > > WITH > > [ > > NO > > (READ,WRITE) > > PERMISSION TO > > (GROUP,OTHERS) > > ] > > If we're going to do anything here, it should use COPY's > extensible-options syntax, I think. > > > Thanks Robert. Let me send a patch for this.
how are you going to handle windows or unix ACLs here? Its permission model is quite different and more powerful than (non-acl based) unix in general, handling this in a flexible way might soon get very complicated and complex for limited gain... Stefan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
