| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ted Yu <yuzhihong(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: allow granting CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW, and REINDEX |
| Date: | 2023-06-20 16:16:59 |
| Message-ID: | 61b81ec0783aefbc59be06a3c3849118aa6199b9.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2023-06-20 at 14:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> TBH, I have a mixed feeling about this line of reasoning because
> MAINTAIN is much broader and less specific than TRUNCATE, for
> instance, being spawned across so much more operations.
...
> Some users may find that surprising as they
> used to have more control over these operations as owners of the
> relations worked on.
It seems like the user shouldn't be surprised if they can carry out the
action; nor should they be surprised if they can't carry out the
action. Having privileges revoked on a table from the table's owner is
an edge case in behavior and both make sense to me.
In the absense of a use case, I'd be inclined towards just being
consistent with the other privileges.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2023-06-20 16:20:33 | Re: Do we want a hashset type? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-06-20 16:16:04 | Re: collation-related loose ends before beta2 |