Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart
Date: 2026-05-29 03:17:13
Message-ID: CAA4eK1KePhRS5ssamAtf=t9N_42BVvGYnbYAaFz--tzn6Zr6tA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 5:39 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I noticed that this point still remains as an open item for PG19.
>
> I agree with the points Andres and Amit made: the REPLICATION
> privilege already grants very powerful capabilities, including the
> ability to read all data via physical streaming and to hold back
> horizons. A user trusted with REPLICATION is already trusted enough
> that allowing them to create a logical slot does not represent a
> fundamentally new class of risk.
>
> As Andres pointed out, any user with more than the bare minimum of
> permissions can cause arbitrarily high WAL volume in hard-to-identify
> ways. If the concern is about detecting and responding to unexpected
> overhead the better path would be improving monitoring infrastructure
> (e.g. per-session or per-user WAL tracking) rather than restricting
> logical slot creation itself. And we already have backend-level WAL
> statistics. Since there have been no further objections since then,
> I'd like to propose closing this open item as "Non-bugs".
>

+1.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonathan S. Katz 2026-05-29 03:23:08 PostgreSQL 19 Beta 1 release announcement draft
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2026-05-29 03:11:38 Re: ECPG: inconsistent behavior with the document in “GET/SET DESCRIPTOR.”