| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
| Cc: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Isn't non-TEST_AND_SET code long dead? |
| Date: | 2000-09-03 05:25:42 |
| Message-ID: | 7154.967958742@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> writes:
> On a somewhat related note, what about the NO_SECURITY defines
> strewn throughout the backend? Does anyone run the server with
> NO_SECURITY defined? And if so, what benefit is that over just
> running with everything owned by the same user?
I suppose the idea was to avoid expending *any* cycles on security
checks if you didn't need them in your particular situation. But
offhand I've never heard of anyone actually using the feature. I'm
dubious whether the amount of time saved would be worth the trouble.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2000-09-03 09:03:31 | Re: [Solved] SQL Server to PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-09-03 05:07:28 | Re: [Solved] SQL Server to PostgreSQL |