| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: predefined role(s) for VACUUM and ANALYZE |
| Date: | 2022-09-30 20:15:24 |
| Message-ID: | 678838.1664568924@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Are there any remaining concerns about this approach? I'm happy to do any
> testing that folks deem necessary, or anything else really that might help
> move this patch set forward. If we don't want to extend AclMode right
> away, we could also keep it in our back pocket for the next time someone
> (which may very well be me) wants to add privileges. That is, 0001 is not
> fundamentally a prerequisite for 0002-0004, but I recognize that freeing up
> some extra bits would be the most courteous.
In view of the recent mess around bigint relfilenodes, it seems to me
that we shouldn't move forward with widening AclMode unless somebody
runs down which structs will get wider (or more aligned) and how much
that'll cost us. Maybe it's not a problem, but it could do with an
explicit look at the point.
I do agree with the position that these features are not where to
spend our last remaining privilege bits.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-09-30 20:34:32 | Re: allowing for control over SET ROLE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-09-30 19:40:02 | Re: Question: test "aggregates" failed in 32-bit machine |