Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE
От | Karel Zak - Zakkr |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.3.96.1000229103347.8101A-100000@ara.zf.jcu.cz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Karel Zak - Zakkr writes: > > > This patch add to current code NOCREATETABLE and NOLOCKTABLE feature: > > > > CREATE USER username > > [ WITH > > [ SYSID uid ] > > [ PASSWORD 'password' ] ] > > [ CREATEDB | NOCREATEDB ] [ CREATEUSER | NOCREATEUSER ] > > -> [ CREATETABLE | NOCREATETABLE ] [ LOCKTABLE | NOLOCKTABLE ] > > ...etc. > > IMHO, the syntax for create user is a hell and a half. Adding more > keywords in the current fashion is a dead end. (Note: you have to remember > the order in which the user "features" have to be entered.) > > I might as well propose that now, I'd like to see a syntax like > > CREATE USER name ( > password = 'xxx', > sysid = 99, > superuser = true, > ... > ); > > That's much more flexible and extensible. The old syntax could coexist > with this too. Agree (Why is it not in TODO?). Do you work on this? > Regarding your two new features: > > If you disallow table locking you might as well tell users not to use the > database. People need locks to operate a relational database. You will end Here I not agree. I need users account with read-only/non-lock access. Very simple is say "..not to use the database..", but you not "remake" my users, you not admin for these users .. :-) My NOLOCK implementation disallow LOCK TABLE command only, it not change a low-level locking management. > Disallowing table creation might seem like a decent idea, but if at all, > it should go into the grant/revoke realm. Incidentally, this is quite at > odds with the SQL idea of how things should work, and I had hoped we could > get there some day. The grant/revoke is good, but it is not global setting. The PostgreSQL needs more options/settings for administration, a current features is very unsatisfactory for real using for large and multiuser aplication. My suggestion for PG's priv./accounts: 1/ global setting which overwrite local (acl) settings - read-only account - disable account (oracle: ACCOUNT LOCK) - create table priv. - user's quotas (but without tablespace?)2/ spit current super-user privileges to - (dis)allowcreate functions/opretors/trigers - (dis)allow create user ? (dis)allow change system tables 3/ ? - remove current hda.conf to system catalogs4/ user profiles - CONNECT_TIME - IDLE_TIME - PASSWORD_LIFE_TIME - PASSWORD_VERIFY_FUNCTION (trust/password/kerberos..) - ..etc (- CPU SPENTING ?) 5/ acl mask - default privilege for new table Karel
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: