| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT. |
| Date: | 2021-10-26 01:47:03 |
| Message-ID: | 06ee895767b46f631327d7e029d46106a8a6fbe9.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2021-10-26 at 00:07 +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> It feels a bit excessive to introduce a new predefined role just for
> this. Perhaps this could be accomplished with a new function that
> could be granted.
It would be nice if the syntax could be used, since it's pretty
widespread. I guess it does feel excessive to have its own predefined
role, but at the same time it's hard to group a command like CHECKPOINT
into a category. Maybe if we named it something like pg_performance or
something we could make a larger group?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-10-26 01:50:20 | Re: prevent immature WAL streaming |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-10-26 01:21:40 | Re: Spelling change in LLVM 14 API |