On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 04:24, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 17:23, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>>> On the other hand, the REPLICATION privilege is denying you the right to
>>>>> perform an operation *even though you already are authenticated as a
>>>>> superuser*. I don't think there's anywhere else in the system where
>>>>> we allow a privilege to non-super-users but deny that same privilege
>>>>> to super-users, and I don't think we should be starting now.
>>>> You might want to reflect on rolcatupdate a bit before asserting that
>>>> there are no cases where privileges are ever denied to superusers.
>>> Oh, huh. I wasn't aware of that.
>>>> However, that precedent would suggest that the default should be to
>>>> grant the replication bit to superusers.
>>> Yes it would.
>> Just to be clear: are we saying that "CREATE ROLE foo SUPERUSER"
>> should grant both superuser and replication, as well as the default
>> "postgres" user also having replication as well?
> I think that's what we're saying.
Ok, done and applied.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2011-01-05 13:35:32|
|Subject: Re: system views for walsender activity|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2011-01-05 12:29:39|
|Subject: Re: We need to log aborted autovacuums|