* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 10:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> There are way too many table privilege bits already; to add more you
> >> need something a lot stronger than a "might be nice" argument.
>
> > People use TRUNCATE whatever we say. If you force people to be table
> > owners or superusers you merely restrict their security options.
>
> By that argument you could justify a separate privilege bit for anything
> at all, eg, each sub-variant of ALTER TABLE. Please present an actual
> argument why TRUNCATE should get its own bit.
I've done this already, and continue to feel that TRUNCATE should have
its own bit. There are many cases where you want a user to be able to
truncate a table but not alter its structure. TRUNCATE is not a
DDL-type statement, those can and should be reserved to the owner.
Thanks,
Stephen
