On 07/25/2015 03:38 AM, dinesh kumar wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com
> <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:15 PM, dinesh kumar
> <dineshkumar02@gmail.com <mailto:dineshkumar02@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Robert Haas
> <robertmhaas@gmail.com <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:19 PM, dinesh kumar
> <dineshkumar02@gmail.com <mailto:dineshkumar02@gmail.com>>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Sorry for my unclear description about the proposal.
> >> >
> >> > "WITH PERMISSIVE" is equal to our existing behavior. That is, chmod=644
> >> > on
> >> > the created files.
> >> >
> >> > If User don't specify "PERMISSIVE" as an option, then the chmod=600 on
> >> > created files. In this way, we can restrict the other users from reading
> >> > these files.
> >>
> >> There might be some benefit in allowing the user to choose the
> >> permissions, but (1) I doubt we want to change the default behavior
> >> and (2) providing only two options doesn't seem flexible enough.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for your inputs Robert.
> >
> > 1) IMO, we will keep the exiting behavior as it is.
> >
> > 2) As the actual proposal talks about the permissions of group/others. So,
> > we can add few options as below to the WITH clause
> >
> > COPY
> > ..
> > ..
> > WITH
> > [
> > NO
> > (READ,WRITE)
> > PERMISSION TO
> > (GROUP,OTHERS)
> > ]
>
> If we're going to do anything here, it should use COPY's
> extensible-options syntax, I think.
>
>
> Thanks Robert. Let me send a patch for this.
how are you going to handle windows or unix ACLs here?
Its permission model is quite different and more powerful than (non-acl
based) unix in general, handling this in a flexible way might soon get
very complicated and complex for limited gain...
Stefan
