Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match