| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, 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: | 2021-11-02 17:28:39 |
| Message-ID: | 5e7a618de1b49ba1ceede54ee1b1d073bd57f1f4.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2021-11-01 at 12:50 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> All that said, I wonder if we can have our cake and eat it too. I
> haven't looked into this at all yet and perhaps it's foolish on its
> face, but, could we make CHECKPOINT; basically turn around and just
> run
> select pg_checkpoint(); with the regular privilege checking
> happening?
> Then we'd keep the existing syntax working, but if the user is
> allowed
> to run the command would depend on if they've been GRANT'd EXECUTE
> rights on the function or not.
Great idea! Patch attached.
This feels like a good pattern that we might want to use elsewhere, if
the need arises.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| pg-checkpoint.diff | text/x-patch | 5.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2021-11-02 17:33:50 | Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? |
| Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-11-02 17:27:35 | Re: archive modules |