| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: speed up a logical replica setup |
| Date: | 2024-03-19 11:56:10 |
| Message-ID: | d3ea49ed-1994-4803-8fdd-727bd39d03c9@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 19.03.24 08:05, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 7:22 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>>
>> In check_subscriber(): All these permissions checks seem problematic
>> to me. We shouldn't reimplement our own copy of the server's
>> permission checks. The server can check the permissions. And if the
>> permission checking in the server ever changes, then we have
>> inconsistencies to take care of. Also, the error messages "permission
>> denied" are inappropriate, because we are not doing the actual thing.
>> Maybe we want to do a dry-run for the benefit of the user, but then we
>> should do the actual thing, like try to create a replication slot, or
>> whatever. But I would rather just remove all this, it seems too
>> problematic.
>>
>
> If we remove all the checks then there is a possibility that we can
> fail later while creating the actual subscription. For example, if
> there are not sufficient max_replication_slots, then it is bound to
> fail in the later steps which would be a costlier affair because by
> that time the standby would have been promoted and the user won't have
> any way to move forward but to re-create standby and then use this
> tool again. I think here the patch tries to mimic pg_upgrade style
> checks where we do some pre-checks.
I think checking for required parameter settings is fine. My concern is
with the code before that, that does
pg_has_role/has_database_privilege/has_function_privilege.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-03-19 11:57:36 | Re: speed up a logical replica setup |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-03-19 11:53:46 | Re: Proposal to include --exclude-extension Flag in pg_dump |