Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT.

From: Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT.
Date: 2021-11-03 00:08:27
Message-ID: CAMsGm5cq6s3O18NXjhG=h5KUnVsLbkuuQ3PVAEOZ3w6O9NCppA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 19:00, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> wrote:

> On 11/2/21 11:14 PM, Vik Fearing wrote:
>
> > This would be nice, but there is nothing to hang our hat on:
> >
> > GRANT CHECKPOINT TO username;
>
> Thinking about this more, why don't we just add CHECKPOINT and
> NOCHECKPOINT attributes to roles?
>
> ALTER ROLE username WITH CHECKPOINT;
>

At present, this would require adding a field to pg_authid. This isn't very
scalable; but we're already creating new pg_* roles which give access to
various actions so I don't know why a role attribute would be a better
approach. If anything, I think it would be more likely to move in the other
direction: replace role attributes that in effect grant privileges with
predefined roles. I think this has already been discussed here in the
context of CREATEROLE.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2021-11-03 00:49:29 Re: AArch64 has single-copy 64 bit atomicity
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-11-03 00:02:41 Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?