| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH v2] use has_privs_for_role for predefined roles |
| Date: | 2022-04-04 13:05:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaBQ5idAh7OsQGAbLY166SVkj7KkKROkTyN5sOF6QDuww@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 1:32 PM Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> I saw that Robert added documentation and it already reads correctly I
> believe, except possibly an unrelated issue:
>
> 8<--------------
> <para>
> A role which replication whose privileges users are required to
> possess
> in order to make use of the <literal>shell</literal> backup target.
> If this is not set, any replication user may make use of the
> <literal>shell</literal> backup target.
> </para>
> 8<--------------
>
> Robert, should that actually be:
> s/role which replication/role with replication/
Oh, good catch. Actually shouldn't "with replication" just be deleted?
Or maybe it needs to be reworded more, for clarity: "Replication users
must possess the privileges of this role in order to ..."
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-04-04 13:08:12 | Re: pg_rewind copies |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-04-04 12:59:28 | Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index |