Re: Logical replication subscription owner

Greetings,

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I had it in my mind that LOGIN was for regular (SQL-based) login, and
> > REPLICATION was for replication login, and that they were orthogonal.
>
> Yeah, that's what I would've expected. Otherwise, is REPLICATION
> without LOGIN useful at all?

No, but it's less surprising, at least to me, for all roles that login
to require having the LOGIN right. Having REPLICATION ignore that would
be surprising (and a change from today). Maybe if we called it
REPLICATIONLOGIN or something along those lines it would be less
surprising, but it still seems pretty awkward.

I view REPLICATION as allowing a specific kind of connection, but you
first need to be able to login.

Also- what about per-database connections? Does having REPLICATION mean
you get to override the CONNECT privileges on a database, if you're
connecting for the purposes of doing logical replication?

I agree we could do better in these areas, but I'd argue that's mostly
around improving the documentation rather than baking in implications
that one privilege implies another. We certainly get people who
complain about getting a permission denied error when they have UPDATE
rights on a table (but not SELECT) and they include a WHERE clause in
their update statement, but that doesn't mean we should assume that
having UPDATE rights means you also get SELECT rights, just because
UPDATE is next to useless without SELECT.

Thanks,

Stephen