* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "Nicholas Barr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > At the moment it seems as if a single 32 bit integer is used for the
> > permissions, with the top half being the grantable rights. I assume I
> > would need to extend this into two 32 bit integers, or one 64 bi
"Nicholas Barr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At the moment it seems as if a single 32 bit integer is used for the
> permissions, with the top half being the grantable rights. I assume I
> would need to extend this into two 32 bit integers, or one 64 bit integer?
Two 32-bit please. We are still t
> * Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>
>> > > Wouldn't it be far more logical to decide that if a user has the
>> > > permissions to do a DELETE FROM table; then they have permission to
>> do
>> > > a TRUNCATE? Why make an additional permission?
>> >
>> > Truncate doesn't fire
* Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > > Wouldn't it be far more logical to decide that if a user has the
> > > permissions to do a DELETE FROM table; then they have permission to
> do
> > > a TRUNCATE? Why make an additional permission?
> >
> > Truncate doesn't fire ON D
> > Wouldn't it be far more logical to decide that if a user has the
> > permissions to do a DELETE FROM table; then they have permission to
do
> > a TRUNCATE? Why make an additional permission?
>
> Truncate doesn't fire ON DELETE triggers.
Yes, but it would imho be ok if there are'nt any on d
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 09:40:08AM +0200, Ewald Geschwinde wrote:
My problem is that some users don't have access to change the structure but
they wanted to delete all data from the table
they try truncate - does not work because not the owner
so they make a delete
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 09:40:08AM +0200, Ewald Geschwinde wrote:
> My problem is that some users don't have access to change the structure but
> they wanted to delete all data from the table
> they try truncate - does not work because not the owner
> so they make a delete from a really big table
Yes, there is a use-case for it. If you don't have triggers or
transactional concerns on the table and you want users to be able to
truncate tables while not allowing them to do things like change the
table structure. I proposed a patch a while ago to implement a seperate
permission for truncate
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Nick Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I was looking to start development on the following TODO entry.
> > Add a separate TRUNCATE permission
>
> Is there actually a use-case for that? It seems like mostly pointless
> complication to me. (Note that in t
Nick Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was looking to start development on the following TODO entry.
> Add a separate TRUNCATE permission
Is there actually a use-case for that? It seems like mostly pointless
complication to me. (Note that in the role world, one can effectively
have a table ow
Hi,
I was looking to start development on the following TODO entry.
Add a separate TRUNCATE permission
Currently only the owner can TRUNCATE a table because triggers are not called,
and the table is locked in exclusive mode.
Does anyone have any objections? Looks like there is a change freez
11 matches
Mail list logo
