| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |
| Date: | 2023-01-26 20:55:13 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa9Q8SFQCGSE-tF_RLkgr15VZwfA4NKsgkMV-E5OER5_A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 12:36 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-01-26 at 09:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I have no issue with that as a long-term plan. However, I think that
> > for right now we should just introduce pg_create_subscription. It
> > would make sense to add pg_create_connection in the same patch that
> > adds a CREATE CONNECTION command (or whatever exact syntax we end up
> > with) -- and that patch can also change CREATE SUBSCRIPTION to
> > require
> > both privileges where a connection string is specified directly.
>
> I assumed it would be a problem to say that pg_create_subscription was
> enough to create a subscription today, and then later require
> additional privileges (e.g. pg_create_connection).
>
> If that's not a problem, then this sounds fine with me.
Wonderful! I'm working on a patch, but due to various distractions,
it's not done yet.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-01-26 20:57:02 | Re: lockup in parallel hash join on dikkop (freebsd 14.0-current) |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-01-26 20:55:10 | Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early |