| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: predefined role(s) for VACUUM and ANALYZE |
| Date: | 2022-07-26 17:50:32 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZKDSnFsz8d_3YLJpZH8xnD3N4qS-Qv2Us+sK0Ry4fPhQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:37 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 9:47 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > One arguable point would be whether we will need to put restriction
> > the target relations that Bob can vacuum/analyze.
>
> But for a command with a target, you really ought to have a
> permission on the object, not just a general permission. On the other
> hand, we do have things like pg_read_all_tables, so we could have
> pg_vacuum_all_tables too.
I'm still more likely to create a specific security definer function owned
by the relevant table owner to give out ANALYZE (and maybe VACUUM)
permission to ETL-performing roles.
Still, it seems somewhat appealing to give
> people fine-grained control over this, rather than just "on" or "off".
>
>
Appealing enough to consume a couple of permission bits?
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-07-26 17:51:56 | Re: Transparent column encryption |
| Previous Message | chenhj | 2022-07-26 17:47:04 | Re: [Proposal] Page Compression for OLTP |