From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |
Date: | 2021-11-18 10:50:01 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KHE_xmxk==CqTcTzceC_n00tRWBLm3DGUWhaaPTguz3A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:56 PM Mark Dilger
<mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 2021, at 9:33 AM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> >
>
> > This would not address the weirdness of the existing code where a
> > superuser loses their superuser privileges but still owns a
> > subscription. But perhaps we can solve that a different way, like just
> > performing a check when someone loses their superuser privileges that
> > they don't own any subscriptions.
>
> I gave that a slight amount of thought during the design of this patch, but didn't think we could refuse to revoke superuser on such a basis, and didn't see what we should do with the subscription other than have it continue to be owned by the recently-non-superuser. If you have a better idea, we can discuss it, but to some degree I think that is also orthogonal to the purpose of this patch. The only sense in which this patch depends on that issue is that this patch proposes that non-superuser subscription owners are already an issue, and therefore that this patch isn't creating a new issue, but rather making more sane something that already can happen.
>
Don't we want to close this gap irrespective of the other part of the
feature? I mean if we take out the part of your 0003 patch that checks
whether the current user has permission to perform a particular
operation on the target table then the gap related to the owner losing
superuser privileges should be addressed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-11-18 11:31:19 | Re: Should we improve "PID XXXX is not a PostgreSQL server process" warning for pg_terminate_backend(<<postmaster_pid>>)? |
Previous Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2021-11-18 10:35:37 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |