| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Invalidate the subscription worker in cases where a user loses their superuser status |
| Date: | 2023-09-28 15:34:14 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob2mYpaUMT7aoFOukYTrpxt-WdgcitJnsjWhufnbDWEeg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 2:58 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> But OTOH, the owner of the subscription can be changed by the Alter
> Subscription command whereas superuser status can't be changed. I
> think we should consider changing the message for this case.
The superuser status of the subscription owner is definitely *not* a
parameter of the subscription, so it doesn't seem like the same
message is appropriate.
> Adding Jeff and Robert to see what is their opinion on whether we
> should backpatch this or not.
I guess it depends on whether we think this is a bug. I think you
could argue it either way.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2023-09-28 16:06:21 | Re: bug: ANALYZE progress report with inheritance tables |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-09-28 15:25:04 | Re: Eliminate redundant tuple visibility check in vacuum |