Re: pg_tablespace_size() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: pg_tablespace_size()
Date
Msg-id 470FAB85.2070700@hagander.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_tablespace_size()  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> * Just remove the above-quoted lines.  Superusers should be allowed to
>>> shoot themselves in the foot.  (I'm not actually sure that there would
>>> be any bad consequences from putting an ordinary table into pg_global
>>> anyway.
> 
>> Is there ever *any* reason for doing this?
> 
> Probably not a good one, and I suspect there would be some funny
> misbehaviors if you were to clone the database containing the table.
> The table would be physically shared but logically not.

yuck.


> What I'm inclined to do about it is is adopt my suggestion #2 (move the
> location of the defense), since "permission denied" for a superuser is
> a pretty unhelpful error message anyway.

Ok. Works for me.


>>> * Decide that we should allow anyone to do pg_tablespace_size('pg_global')
>>> and put in a special wart for that in dbsize.c.  This wasn't part of
>>> the original agreement but maybe there's a case to be made for it.
> 
>> That's pretty much the same thing, right?
> 
> Well, no, I was suggesting that we might want to special-case pg_global
> as a tablespace that anyone (superuser or no) could get the size of.
> This is actually independent of whether we change the aclmask behavior.

Oh, ok, I see. Then my vote is for the other solution = not allowing
anybody to do this.

//Magnus


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_tablespace_size()
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher