| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |
| Date: | 2021-11-16 18:08:06 |
| Message-ID: | 3c9b220207b8895086887addd37d371ccd1b420b.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2021-11-01 at 10:58 -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
> It is unclear that I can make ALTER SUBSCRIPTION..OWNER TO
> synchronous without redesigning the way workers respond to
> pg_subscription catalog updates generally. That may be a good
> project to eventually tackle, but I don't see that it is more
> important to close the race condition in an OWNER TO than for a
> DISABLE.
>
> Thoughts?
What if we just say that OWNER TO must be done by a superuser, changing
from one superuser to another, just like today? That would preserve
backwards compatibility, but people with non-superuser subscriptions
would need to drop/recreate them.
When we eventually do tackle the problem, we can lift the restriction.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-11-16 18:12:26 | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-11-16 18:01:54 | Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h |