| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT. |
| Date: | 2021-10-31 00:26:26 |
| Message-ID: | 202110310026.zmhkxct6ka6c@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-Oct-30, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I tend to agree with all of this. The CHECKPOINT command is already
> there and people already use it. If we are already chipping away at the
> need for superuser elsewhere, we should offer a way to use CHECKPOINT
> without being superuser.
+1
> If the purpose[0] of predefined roles is that they allow you to do
> things that can't be expressed by GRANT, a predefined role
> pg_checkpointer seems to fit the bill.
+1
> The main argument against[1] having a pg_checkpointer predefined role
> is that it creates a clutter of predefined roles. But it seems like
> just another part of the clutter of having a special SQL command merely
> for requesting a checkpoint.
+1
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Y una voz del caos me habló y me dijo
"Sonríe y sé feliz, podría ser peor".
Y sonreí. Y fui feliz.
Y fue peor.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-10-31 01:05:47 | Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT. |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-10-30 21:21:01 | parallel vacuum comments |