* Jim C. Nasby (jnasby@pervasive.com) wrote:
> I dislike restricting to super-user, and to some extent even table
> owner. The reason is that if you have some automated batch process, you
> don't want that process running as a superuser. Also, it is often
> awkward to require that the user running that batch own the table.
The owner of the table could be a role which the batch runner is part of
(along with whatever other roles you wish to have 'owner'-level
permissions on the table).
> I'd much rather see this as a grantable permission on the table. (The
> same is true with truncate, btw). This way, if a DBA knew he could trust
> a specific role, he could allow for these operations on a specific
> table.
In general, I do prefer that permissions be seperably grantable. Being
able to grant 'truncate' permissions would be really nice. Is the only
reason such permission doesn't exist due to no one working on it, or is
there other disagreement about it?
Thanks,
Stephen
