Re: [HACKERS] Permissions on copy
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: scrappy@hub.org (The Hermit Hacker)
Cc: Andreas.Zeugswetter@telecom.at, pgsql-hackers@hub.org
Date: 1998-02-20T17:03:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > Since the copy statement is behaving differently than the normal select > > > stuff, > > > I think we should eighter introduce a new permission (name it copy or dump) > > > or include the copy into the rewrite system. > > > > > > I would vote for the first and implement a new command: > > > unload to <filename> [delimiter '|'] <select statement>; -- and > > > load from <filename> [delimiter '|'] <insert statement>; > > > that does behave like the select. (please forgive my Informix > > > background) > > > > Yes, I agree the Informix way of having load/unload, and having a SELECT > > capability so you can dump any data/join you want, not just a single > > table. Do I have votes to put this on the TODO list? > > I'm not quite sure what we are voting on here...is it to implement > permissions on a copy, like we do on 'select/delete/insert/etc'? > > If so, count me in... Two things. First was a separate COPY priviledge, which I vote against. I see no real value to it, except to work around the problem that COPY doesn't use rules. Second, there was the idea of making copy allow a real select statement and not just a table name. If we do that, all goes through the executor, and you get view and rules working properly. May have some performance penalty, though it probabably will be minor. -- Bruce Momjian maillist@candle.pha.pa.us