Re: Allow database owners to CREATE EVENT TRIGGER

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Steve Chavez <steve(at)supabase(dot)io>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Allow database owners to CREATE EVENT TRIGGER
Date: 2025-04-21 04:13:47
Message-ID: CAKFQuwaw-gavW63pAXa_YiSK131OYf_tVfn1_kkQ7zTrXDUYhA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sunday, April 20, 2025, Steve Chavez <steve(at)supabase(dot)io> wrote:

> > Also, this looks unconventional…
> > EventTriggerCacheItem *item = (EventTriggerCacheItem*) lfirst_oid(lc);
>
> Just noticed the mistake there, I would have expected a compilation error.
> New patch attached with the following change:
>
> EventTriggerCacheItem *item = lfirst(lc);
>
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 at 22:55, Steve Chavez <steve(at)supabase(dot)io> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, attached the output file.
>>
>>
You can remove role member_1 and trigger..1 and “create table foo” from the
nosuper script without any loss of test coverage. Or member2 trigger2
table_bar along with the alter event trigger command which doesn’t need to
be exercised here. Ownership is all that matters. Whether come to
directly or via alter.

Actually, leave the other member around, but not granted ownership, and
both create tables, to demonstrate that a non-superuser and non-owner is
unaffected by the trigger.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Frédéric Yhuel 2025-04-21 05:46:50 Re: [BUG] temporary file usage report with extended protocol and unnamed portals
Previous Message David Rowley 2025-04-21 04:03:09 Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Fix minor grammatical and formatting issues