2009/9/23 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>:
> Jaime,
>
> KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> | > ALTER LARGE OBJECT is working, but now that we can change the owner of
> | > a LO we should be able to see who the actual owner is... i mean we
> | > should add an owner column in \dl for psql (maybe \dl+) and maybe an
> | > lo_owner() function.
> |
> | I would like to buy your idea at the revised patch.
>
> Now we don't have xxx_owner() function for other database objects,
> such as tables, procedures and so on.
good point, but we have has_xxxxxx_privileges() family of functions
but i think we can add them later if needed...
>
> Jaime Casanova wrote:
>>> Do you think the "largeobject_compat_acl" is a meaningful name, instead?
>>
>> maybe something like "largeobject_security_controls"?
>
> It is important to contain a term of "compat" which means compatible,
> because this GUC does not disables all the security checks.
> The v8.4.x checks superuser privilege on using lo_import()/lo_export().
> It is also checked in this patch, even if the GUC is turned on.
>
> The purpose of the GUC is to provide compatible behavior, not to provide
> a stuff to turn on/off all the security features in largeobjects.
>
that's why the section in the postgresql.conf is called
"VERSION/PLATFORM COMPATIBILITY" and the subsection "Previous
PostgreSQL Versions" we have other compatibilty GUC and no ones of
those has the term "compat" in it...
> So, I still prefer the "largeobject_compat_acl".
>
maybe "enhanced_largeobjects_checks" or "enhanced_lo_checks"
or make the GUC an enum and name it "largeobject_control_checks" with
posible values "basic" and "enhanced"
--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157