From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |
Date: | 2021-11-17 23:46:55 |
Message-ID: | 765593c8f280903f6653762f879abcaae9168789.camel@j-davis.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2021-11-17 at 15:07 -0800, Mark Dilger wrote:
> We only have 4 values left in the bitmask, and I doubt that burning
> those slots for multiple new types of rights that only have meaning
> for subscriptions is going to be accepted. For full disclosure, I'm
> proposing adding ACL_SET and ACL_ALTER_SYSTEM in another patch and my
> proposal there could get shot down for the same reasons, but I think
> your argument would be even harder to defend. Maybe others feel
> differently.
Why not overload ACL_USAGE again, and say:
GRANT USAGE ON SUBSCRIPTION sub1 TO nonsuper;
would allow ENABLE/DISABLE and REFRESH.
Again, I don't really understand the use case behind "can use a
subscription but not create one", so I'm not making a proposal. But
assuming that the use case exists, GRANT seems like a much better
approach.
(Aside: for me to commit something like this I'd want to understand the
"can use a subscription but not create one" use case better.)
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-18 00:14:28 | Re: Improving psql's \password command |
Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-11-17 23:07:10 | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |