Hi,
> Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> writes:
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Sander Steffann wrote:
> >> I can't think of a reason that [creation of] temp tables should
> >> be prevented.
>
> > Maybe to keep hostile users from filling up your disk?
>
> That does come to mind --- but if you've let hostile users into
> your database, filling your disk is not exactly the smallest problem
> they could cause. They can very easily cause DOS problems just based
> on overconsumption of CPU cycles, or on crashing your server constantly.
> (Cm'on, we all know that can be done.) Even more to the point, is there
> nothing in your database that you'd not want published to the entire
> world? There's got to be a certain amount of trust level between you
> and the persons you allow SQL-command-level access to your database.
> If not, you ought to be interposing another level of software.
>
> My current proposal for schema protection does include a TEMP-table-
> creation right ... but to be honest I am not convinced that it'd be
> worth the trouble to implement it. Comments anyone?
I see your point, but I think Curt is right... If users are always allowed
to make temp tables, you can't give someone real read-only access to the DB.
I agree that there has to be more protection to prevent other abuses, but at
least the disk is safe.
Sander
