* Michael Paesold (mpaesold@gmx.at) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> >I'm not a particularly big fan of this though because, while I'd
> >like to be able to give TRUNCATE permissions I'm not a big fan of SET
> >RELIABILITY because it would affect PITR backups.
>
> As far as I have understood the discussion... with WAL archiving turned on,
> the whole RELIABILITY changes would be no-ops, no?
> Just as the CTAS optimization etc. only skip WAL if WAL archiving is turned
> off.
Oh, I thought the reliability bit would bypass WAL even with archiving
turned on (which could be fine in some cases, just not all cases :). Of
course, all of this is still up in the air somewhat. :) If it's a noop
in that case then the 'bypass' bit might be alright to have control SET
RELIABILITY. I'd rather have the flexibility to have them be seperately
grantable though.
Thanks,
Stephen
