X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9848D1CCA7 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 03:32:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [64.117.224.130]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21489-03 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:31:23 -0300 (ADT) Received: from www.postgresql.com (unknown [64.117.225.209]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6CA5D1DC5B for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:22:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: from smtp102.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp102.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [216.136.174.140]) by www.postgresql.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D54A4CF487A for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:29:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from pcp01341166pcs.wilog301.pa.comcast.net (HELO europa.janwieck.net) (janwieck@68.80.245.191 with login) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2003 17:28:32 -0000 Received: from Yahoo.com (ismtp.afilias.com [216.217.55.254]) (authenticated) by europa.janwieck.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8UHSS303396; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:28:28 -0400 Message-ID: <3F79BD24.3090400@Yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:28:04 -0400 From: Jan Wieck User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephan Szabo Cc: Tom Lane , Bruce Momjian , Christopher Kings-Lynne , Peter Childs , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: ADD FOREIGN KEY (was Re: [GENERAL] 7.4Beta) References: <200309301233.h8UCXcQ21796@candle.pha.pa.us> <19140.1064930871@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20030930074408.H14474@megazone.bigpanda.com> In-Reply-To: <20030930074408.H14474@megazone.bigpanda.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200310/19 X-Sequence-Number: 44701 Stephan Szabo wrote: > On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I see where Stephan is coming from, but in my mind disabling consistency >> checks ought to be a feature reserved to the DBA (ie superuser), who >> presumably has some clue about the tradeoffs involved. I don't think >> ordinary users should be able to do it. If we can get the cost of >> performing the initial check down to something reasonable (and I don't >> mean "near zero", I mean something that's small in comparison to the >> other costs of loading data and creating indexes), then I think we've >> done as much as we should do for ordinary users. > > Limiting the cases under which constraint ignoring works is certainly > fine by me, but I was assuming that we were trying to make it accessable > to any restore. If that's not true, then we don't need to worry about that > part of the issue. It is not true. Fact is that restoring can require more rights than creating the dump. That is already the case if you want to restore anything that contains objects owned by different users. Trying to enable everyone who can take a dump also to restore it, by whatever mechanism, gives someone the right to revert things in time and create a situation (consistent or not) that he could not (re)create without doing dump/restore. This is wrong and should not be possible. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #