| From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: predefined role(s) for VACUUM and ANALYZE |
| Date: | 2022-09-07 23:15:23 |
| Message-ID: | 27EAC430-8609-4BAB-9B30-31C485C32C11@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Sep 7, 2022, at 4:09 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>
> Calling this a redesign is over-stating things, imv … and I’d much rather have the per-relation granularity than predefined roles for this, so there is that to consider too, perhaps.
Ok, now I'm a bit lost. If I want to use Nathan's feature to create a role to vacuum and analyze my database on a regular basis, how does per-relation granularity help me? If somebody creates a new table and doesn't grant those privileges to the role, doesn't that break the usage case? To me, per-relation granularity sounds useful, but orthogonal, to this feature.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2022-09-08 00:13:11 | Re: Reducing the chunk header sizes on all memory context types |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2022-09-07 23:09:05 | Re: predefined role(s) for VACUUM and ANALYZE |