Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Peripheral Links

Header And Logo

PostgreSQL
| The world's most advanced open source database.

Site Navigation

Search archives
  Advanced Search

Re: [PATCH] Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Why READ ONLY transactions?

  • From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
  • To: Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>
  • Cc: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
  • Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Why READ ONLY transactions?
  • Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:22:55 -0400
  • Message-id: <25296.1059603775@sss.pgh.pa.us> <text/plain>
Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> writes:
>> It's not intended to be a security measure, and I would strongly
>> resist any attempt to make it so along the lines you propose.

> Intended or not, it does work.

No, you just haven't thought of a way to get around it yet.  When you do
think of one, you'll be wanting us to contort the GUC system to plug the
loophole.  We've already got a horrid mess in there for the LOG_XXX
variables, and I don't want to add more.

I'm not objecting to the idea of being able to make users read-only.
I'm objecting to using GUC for it.  Send in a patch that, say, adds a
bool column to pg_shadow, and I'll be happy.

			regards, tom lane
Home | Main Index | Thread Index

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996 – 2012 PostgreSQL Global Development Group