| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: running logical replication as the subscription owner |
| Date: | 2023-03-24 18:36:50 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ6za40H25tB=jCuDQCmPiRbN=RowUjd94PodW-Vuhymw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 2:14 PM Jelte Fennema <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:
> Yes, I totally agree. I now realise that wasn't clear at all from the wording in my previous email. I'm fine with both behaviours. I mainly meant that if we actually think the new behaviour is better (which honestly I'm not convinced of yet), then some follow up patch would probably be good. I definitely don't want to block this patch on any of that though. Both behaviors would be vastly better than the current one in my opinion. So if others wanted the behaviour in your patch, I'm completely fine with that.
Makes sense. I hope a few more people will comment on what they think
we should do here, especially Andres and Noah.
> > Yeah, if we stick with the current approach we should probably add
> > tests for that stuff.
>
> Even if we don't, we should still have tests showing that the security restrictions that we intend to put in place actually do their job.
Yeah, I just don't want to write the tests and then decide to change
the behavior and then have to write them over again. It's not so much
fun that I'm yearning to do it twice.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Egor Rogov | 2023-03-24 18:48:09 | Re: pg_stats and range statistics |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-03-24 18:35:19 | Re: running logical replication as the subscription owner |