Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT.

From: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, 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: 2021-11-01 18:38:14
Message-ID: B9B05B44-01E6-4070-93E4-4C8A68B6CC0C@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/1/21, 10:43 AM, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> Folks playing around in the catalog can break lots of things, I don't
> really see this as an argument against the idea.
>
> I do wonder if we should put a bit more effort into preventing people
> from messing with functions and such in pg_catalog. Being able to do
> something like:
>
> create or replace function xpath ( text, xml ) returns xml[]
> as $$ begin return 'xml'; end; $$ language plpgsql;
>
> (or with much worse functions..) strikes me as just a bit too easy to
> mistakenly cause problems as a superuser. Still, that's really an
> independent issue from this discussion. It's not like someone breaking
> CHECKPOINT; would actually impact normal checkpoints anyway.

Yeah, I see your point.

Nathan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bossart, Nathan 2021-11-01 18:54:51 archive modules
Previous Message Bossart, Nathan 2021-11-01 18:35:30 Re: inefficient loop in StandbyReleaseLockList()