Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A326650103 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:40:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 77873-03 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:40:03 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-159.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.159]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D80CE64FD32 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:39:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from commandprompt.com ([130.129.21.23]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6V8gN3h010952 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:42:27 -0700 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:39:47 +0100 From: Andrew Sullivan To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Should creating a new base type require superuser status? Message-ID: <20080731083946.GD77816@commandprompt.com> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Sullivan , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org References: <19715.1217447413@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20080730220753.GG3977@alvh.no-ip.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080730220753.GG3977@alvh.no-ip.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (lists.commandprompt.com [207.173.203.159]); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:42:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200807/1465 X-Sequence-Number: 121725 On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 06:07:53PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I do agree that creating base types should require a superuser though. > It too seems dangerous just on principle, even if today there's no > actual hole (that we already know of). I agree. -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@commandprompt.com +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/