David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 01:06:09PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> However, it almost seems like this would become a piece of the other
>> per-database-user stuff we'd like to do, like "local superuser".

> I'm not sure that's the same.  The thing about superuser as it exists
> now is the ability to write to the filesystem, which means that
> there's no boundary really possible.

Yeah.  ISTM the correct generalization is "per-user per-database default
GUC settings", which has nothing to do with superuserness.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to