From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |
Date: | 2023-03-27 22:17:27 |
Message-ID: | dd630b1e84d0812502fd5a8217db0f6c9667cbd9.camel@j-davis.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 14:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I thought you were asking for those changes to be made before this
> patch got committed, so that's what I was responding to. If you're
> asking for it not to be committed at all, that's a different
> discussion.
I separately had a complaint (in a separate subthread) about the scope
of the predefined role you are introducing, which I think encompasses
two concepts that should be treated differently and I think that may
need to be revisited later. If you ignore this complaint it wouldn't be
the end of the world.
This subthread is about the order in which the patches get committed
(which is a topic you brought up), not whether they are ever to be
committed.
>
> I kind of agree with you about the feature itself. Even though the
> basic feature works quite well and does something people really want,
> there are a lot of loose ends to sort out, and not just about
> security. But I also want to make some progress. If there are
> problems
> with what I'm proposing that will make us regret committing things
> right before feature freeze, then we shouldn't. But waiting a whole
> additional year to see any kind of improvement is not free; these
> issues are serious.
The non-superuser-subscription-owner patch without the apply-as-table-
owner patch feels like a facade to me, at least right now. Perhaps I
can be convinced otherwise, but that's what it looks like to me.
>
> I think this patch is a lot better-baked and less speculative than
> that one. I think that patch is more important, so if they were
> equally mature, I'd favor getting that one committed first. But
> that's
> not the case.
You explicitly asked about the order of the patches, which made me
think it was more of an option?
If the apply-as-table-owner patch gets held up for whatever reason, we
might have to make a difficult decision. I'd prefer focus on the apply-
as-table-owner patch briefly, and now that it's getting some review
attention, we might find out how ready it is quite soon.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-03-27 22:27:27 | Re: Show various offset arrays for heap WAL records |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-03-27 22:16:59 | Re: Moving forward with TDE |