From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_rewind vs superuser |
Date: | 2019-04-04 10:43:10 |
Message-ID: | 20190404104310.GL7693@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 10:18:45AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Looks good. Maybe we should list the "role having sufficient permissions"
> before superuser, "just because", but not something I feel strongly about.
Listing the superuser after sounds fine to me.
> The part about CHECKPOINT also looks pretty good, but that's entirely
> unrelated, right? :)
Completely unrelated, but as we are on this part of the documentation
now, and as we discussed that stuff face-to-face last September where
I actually promised to write a patch without doing it for seven
months, I see no problems to tackle this issue as well now. Better
later than never :)
I would like to apply this down to 9.5 for the checkpoint part and
down to 11 for the role part, so if anybody has any comments, please
feel free.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-04-04 10:47:26 | Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2019-04-04 10:41:53 | Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table |