Re: predefined role(s) for VACUUM and ANALYZE

Greetings,

On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 18:11 Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 05:13:44PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I disagree that we should put the onus for addressing this on the next
> > person who wants to add bits and just willfully use up the last of them
> > right now for what strikes me, at least, as a relatively marginal use
> > case. If we had plenty of bits then, sure, let's use a couple of for
> > this, but that isn't currently the case. If you want this feature then
> > the onus is on you to do the legwork to make it such that we have plenty
> > of bits.
>
> FWIW what I really want is the new predefined roles. I received feedback
> upthread that it might also make sense to give people more fine-grained
> control, so I implemented that. And now you're telling me that I need to
> redesign the ACL system. :)

Calling this a redesign is over-stating things, imv … and I’d much rather
have the per-relation granularity than predefined roles for this, so there
is that to consider too, perhaps.

I'm happy to give that project a try given there is agreement on the
> direction and general interest in the patches. From the previous
> discussion, it sounds like we want to first use a distinct set of bits for
> each catalog table. Is that what I should proceed with?

Yes, that seems to be the consensus among those involved in this thread
thus far. Basically, I imagine this involves passing around the object
type along with the acl info and then using that to check the bits and
such. I doubt it’s worth inventing a new structure to combine the two …
but that’s just gut feeling and you may find it does make sense to once you
get into it.

Thanks!

Stephen

>