Re: Invalidate the subscription worker in cases where a user loses their superuser status

On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 14:17, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:08 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 10:04 AM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 at 11:10, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 8:22 AM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- a/src/include/catalog/pg_subscription.h
> > > > +++ b/src/include/catalog/pg_subscription.h
> > > > @@ -127,6 +127,7 @@ typedef struct Subscription
> > > > * skipped */
> > > > char *name; /* Name of the subscription */
> > > > Oid owner; /* Oid of the subscription owner */
> > > > + bool ownersuperuser; /* Is the subscription owner a superuser? */
> > > > bool enabled; /* Indicates if the subscription is enabled */
> > > > bool binary; /* Indicates if the subscription wants data in
> > > > * binary format */
> > > >
> > > > We normally don't change the exposed structure in back branches as
> > > > that poses a risk of breaking extensions. In this case, if we want, we
> > > > can try to squeeze some padding space or we even can fix it without
> > > > introducing a new member. OTOH, it is already debatable whether to fix
> > > > it in back branches, so we can even commit this patch just in HEAD.
> > >
> > > I too feel we can commit this patch only in HEAD.
> > >
> >
> > Fair enough. I'll wait till early next week (say till Monday EOD) to
> > see if anyone thinks otherwise and push this patch to HEAD after some
> > more testing and review.
> >
>
> Pushed.

Thanks for committing this.

Regards,
Vignesh