| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(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: | 2022-07-26 17:37:37 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa5A4+OVCm5Uiwgd2=M=zNT6nSxA2xh_60=UY5xKttJsA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 9:47 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> One arguable point would be whether we will need to put restriction
> the target relations that Bob can vacuum/analyze.
Yeah. pg_checkpoint makes sense because you can either CHECKPOINT or
you can't. But for a command with a target, you really ought to have a
permission on the object, not just a general permission. On the other
hand, we do have things like pg_read_all_tables, so we could have
pg_vacuum_all_tables too. Still, it seems somewhat appealing to give
people fine-grained control over this, rather than just "on" or "off".
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-07-26 17:40:22 | Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-07-26 17:33:43 | out of date comment in commit_ts.c |