| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, vaibhave postgres <postgresvaibhave(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, vsekar(at)microsoft(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: vacuumdb: permission denied for schema "pg_temp_7" |
| Date: | 2024-09-24 14:49:12 |
| Message-ID: | ffefcf03-41fe-400b-929b-90692eb70e44@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2024/09/24 23:26, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Yeah, this is what I mentioned upthread [0]. If the user doesn't specify
> anything in --table or --schema, then it's probably fine to silently skip
> objects for which they lack privileges. But if they do explicitly specify
> a table or schema that they cannot vacuum, then IMHO it'd be better to
> fail.
This could be debatable. To be honest, if I run something like vacuumdb mydb,
*I* expect all eligible tables in that database to be vacuumed. If I forget to
grant the necessary privileges to the role, I’d prefer to see errors from
vacuumdb so I can fix the permissions.
If we decide to skip tables without enough privilege, I’d prefer adding
an option like --skip-unprivileged-tables rather than changing the default behavior.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-09-24 14:51:14 | Re: vacuumdb: permission denied for schema "pg_temp_7" |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-09-24 14:30:21 | Re: vacuumdb: permission denied for schema "pg_temp_7" |