Bruce Momjian writes:
> Currently only the owner can TRUNCATE a table because triggers are not
> called, and the table is locked in exclusive mode.
Doh. Of course the point about not calling ON DELETE triggers is why
this has to be considered a special privilege.
Never mind me,
Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Alvaro Herrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > TRUNCATE doesn't follow MVCC...
> >
> > We can certainly talk about fixing that. (And CLUSTER at the same time,
> > I think.)
>
> The issue is that it seems to be intractable to retain MVCC-ness *an
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Alvaro Herrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > > > The question that really ought to be answered before doing any of this
> > > > is why DELETE privilege shouldn't be sufficient to allow TRUNCATE.
> > >
> > > TRUNCATE does
* Alvaro Herrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > > The question that really ought to be answered before doing any of this
> > > is why DELETE privilege shouldn't be sufficient to allow TRUNCATE.
> >
> > TRUNCATE doesn't follow MVCC...
>
> We can certainly talk about fixin
Stephen Frost wrote:
> > The question that really ought to be answered before doing any of this
> > is why DELETE privilege shouldn't be sufficient to allow TRUNCATE.
>
> TRUNCATE doesn't follow MVCC...
We can certainly talk about fixing that. (And CLUSTER at the same time,
I think.)
--
Alvar
Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > we need
> > to redesign the permission system to allow for more permission bits
> > because otherwise we'll run out soon.
>
> Only if we keep inventing separate privileges for things as specific
> as TRUNCATE. I was just about to rai
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > we need
> > to redesign the permission system to allow for more permission bits
> > because otherwise we'll run out soon.
>
> Only if we keep inventing separate privileges for things as specific
> as TRUNCATE. I
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> we need
> to redesign the permission system to allow for more permission bits
> because otherwise we'll run out soon.
Only if we keep inventing separate privileges for things as specific
as TRUNCATE. I was just about to raise this point as a possible re
* Gevik Babakhani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 13:31 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Gevik Babakhani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > The new TRUNCATE permission:
> > > Is it meant to be a general truncating permission on all tables,
> > > schema's like: ???I, the DBA give
* Gevik Babakhani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The new TRUNCATE permission:
> Is it meant to be a general truncating permission on all tables,
> schema's like: ???I, the DBA give you the privilege to TRUNCATE???
> Or is this a per-table, per-schema truncate privilege.
>
> Could someone provide m
I would like to start a discussion regarding the TODO item
“%Add a separate TRUNCATE permission” to gain more information.
The new TRUNCATE permission:
Is it meant to be a general truncating permission on all tables,
schema's like: “I, the DBA give you the privilege to TRUNCATE”
Or is this a pe
11 matches
Mail list logo
