Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Karel Zak - Zakkr
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.3.96.1000229103347.8101A-100000@ara.zf.jcu.cz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] NO-CREATE-TABLE and NO-LOCK-TABLE  (Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> Karel Zak - Zakkr writes:
> 
> > This patch add to current code NOCREATETABLE and NOLOCKTABLE feature:
> > 
> > CREATE USER username
> >     [ WITH
> >      [ SYSID uid ]
> >      [ PASSWORD 'password' ] ]
> >     [ CREATEDB   | NOCREATEDB ] [ CREATEUSER | NOCREATEUSER ]
> > ->  [ CREATETABLE | NOCREATETABLE ] [ LOCKTABLE | NOLOCKTABLE ]
> >     ...etc.
> 
> IMHO, the syntax for create user is a hell and a half. Adding more
> keywords in the current fashion is a dead end. (Note: you have to remember
> the order in which the user "features" have to be entered.)
> 
> I might as well propose that now, I'd like to see a syntax like
> 
> CREATE USER name (
>     password = 'xxx',
>     sysid = 99,
>     superuser = true,
>     ...
> );
> 
> That's much more flexible and extensible. The old syntax could coexist
> with this too.
Agree (Why is it not in TODO?). Do you work on this? 

> Regarding your two new features:
> 
> If you disallow table locking you might as well tell users not to use the
> database. People need locks to operate a relational database. You will end
Here I not agree. I need users account with read-only/non-lock access. Very 
simple is say "..not to use the database..", but you not "remake" my users, 
you not admin for these users .. :-)

My NOLOCK implementation disallow LOCK TABLE command only, it not change
a low-level locking management.

> Disallowing table creation might seem like a decent idea, but if at all,
> it should go into the grant/revoke realm. Incidentally, this is quite at
> odds with the SQL idea of how things should work, and I had hoped we could
> get there some day.
The grant/revoke is good, but it is not global setting.
The PostgreSQL needs more options/settings for administration, a current 
features is very unsatisfactory for real using for large and multiuser
aplication.
My suggestion for PG's priv./accounts:
1/ global setting which overwrite local (acl) settings    - read-only account    - disable account (oracle: ACCOUNT
LOCK)   - create table priv.    - user's quotas (but without tablespace?)2/ spit current super-user privileges to     -
(dis)allowcreate functions/opretors/trigers    - (dis)allow create user    ? (dis)allow change system tables
 
3/ ? - remove current hda.conf to system catalogs4/ user profiles     - CONNECT_TIME    - IDLE_TIME    -
PASSWORD_LIFE_TIME   - PASSWORD_VERIFY_FUNCTION (trust/password/kerberos..)    - ..etc    (- CPU SPENTING ?)
 
5/ acl mask - default privilege for new table 
                    Karel



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN
Next
From: wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN