| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |
| Date: | 2023-03-23 15:52:18 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaRqbgCvSxf0NsBdrXLF5BnYE0ws7xU3qOTaAco4Xm3Dg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 3:53 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> Is there any chance I can convince you to separate the privileges of
> using a connection string and creating a subscription, as I
> suggested[1] earlier?
What would this amount to concretely? Also adding a
pg_connection_string predefined role and requiring both that and
pg_create_subscription in all cases until your proposed changes get
made?
If so, I don't think that's a good idea. Maybe for some reason your
proposed changes won't end up happening, and then we've just got a
useless extra thing that makes things confusing. I think that adding a
pg_connection_string privilege properly belongs to whatever patch
makes it possible to separate the connection string from the
subscription, and that we probably shouldn't add those even in
separate commits, let alone in separate major releases.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kumar, Sachin | 2023-03-23 15:54:49 | RE: Initial Schema Sync for Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-03-23 15:41:52 | Re: HOT chain validation in verify_heapam() |