Okay, okay, complaint withdrawn. Peter, would you commit that
permission check?
regards, tom lane
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> > > What about DoS attacks? What would be the effect of
> > > someone's setting off an infinite loop of CHECKPOINTs?
> >
> > Don't we have bigger DoS attacks? Certainly SELECT cash_out(1) is a
> > much bigger one.
>
> I've missed point - cas
> > What about DoS attacks? What would be the effect of
> > someone's setting off an infinite loop of CHECKPOINTs?
>
> Don't we have bigger DoS attacks? Certainly SELECT cash_out(1) is a
> much bigger one.
I've missed point - cash_out(1) is bug that should be fixed.
Any reason to add yet anot
> 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 interesti
> 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().
Checkpoints 1. affect entire system, 2. inc
> > 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:
I think yes - please apply.
Vadim
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 "sh
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 restrict
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:
Index: utility.c
===
RCS file: /home/projects/pgsql/cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/
> >Contrary to what the submitted documentation claims, there is no
> >permission checking done on the CHECKPOINT command.
> Should there be?
>
> Vadim seemed to indicate that he was going to make that restriction.
> Perhaps I misunderstood.
Yes, there should be permission checking - I'l
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>Contrary to what the submitted documentation claims, there is no
>permission checking done on the CHECKPOINT command. Should there be?
Vadim seemed to indicate that he was going to make that restriction.
Perhaps I misunderstood.
If it's too late to make the change
Contrary to what the submitted documentation claims, there is no
permission checking done on the CHECKPOINT command. Should there be?
Btw., is there any normal usage application of this command? This relates
to the previous paragraph somewhat.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12 matches
Mail list logo
