| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: running logical replication as the subscription owner |
| Date: | 2023-04-03 14:26:30 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ+X2+MUfaYJREP3Cd2Co0uP8drxuNvnYf3QdW5VzBMZw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 6:46 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> I guess the "more convenient" is where I'm confused, because the "grant
> subscription_owner to table owner with set role true" is not likely to
> be conveniently already present; it would need to be issued manually to
> take advantage of this special case.
You and I disagree about the likelihood of that, but I could well be wrong.
> Do you have any concern about the weirdness where assigning the
> subscription to a higher-privilege user Z would cause B's trigger to
> fail?
Not very much. I think the biggest risk is user confusion, but I don't
think that's a huge risk because I don't think this scenario will come
up very often. Also, it's kind of hard to imagine that there's a
security model here which never does anything potentially surprising.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-04-03 14:34:20 | Re: running logical replication as the subscription owner |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-04-03 14:19:49 | Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] Report the query string that caused a memory error under Valgrind |