On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Jan Wieck wrote: > Stephan Szabo wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > > > >> I see where Stephan is coming from, but in my mind disabling consistency > >> checks ought to be a feature reserved to the DBA (ie superuser), who > >> presumably has some clue about the tradeoffs involved. I don't think > >> ordinary users should be able to do it. If we can get the cost of > >> performing the initial check down to something reasonable (and I don't > >> mean "near zero", I mean something that's small in comparison to the > >> other costs of loading data and creating indexes), then I think we've > >> done as much as we should do for ordinary users. > > > > Limiting the cases under which constraint ignoring works is certainly > > fine by me, but I was assuming that we were trying to make it accessable > > to any restore. If that's not true, then we don't need to worry about that > > part of the issue. > > It is not true. > > Fact is that restoring can require more rights than creating the dump. > That is already the case if you want to restore anything that contains > objects owned by different users. Trying to enable everyone who can take > a dump also to restore it, by whatever mechanism, gives someone the > right to revert things in time and create a situation (consistent or > not) that he could not (re)create without doing dump/restore. This is > wrong and should not be possible.
I think this is a larger argument than the one that was being discussed above. Given a dump of objects I own, can I restore them without requiring the fk check to be done if I alter table add constraint a foreign key? If the answer to that is no, then the option can be put in as a superuser only option and it's relatively easy. If the answer to that is yes, then there are additional issues that need to be resolved. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
