Re: Non-superuser subscription owners

From: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2021-11-19 15:25:49
Message-ID: CC5DAC9C-F767-4256-BFEF-32D5A566D254@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On Nov 19, 2021, at 1:44 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I think we are saying the same thing. I intend to say that your 0003*
> patch closes the current gap in the code and we should consider
> applying it irrespective of what we do with respect to changing the
> ... OWNER TO .. behavior. Is there a reason why 0003* patch (or
> something on those lines) shouldn't be considered to be applied?

Jeff Davis and I had a long conversation off-list yesterday and reached the same conclusion. I will be submitting a version of 0003 which does not depend on the prior two patches.


Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2021-11-19 15:44:18 Re: Shouldn't postgres_fdw report warning when it gives up getting result from foreign server?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-11-19 15:24:57 Re: xlog.c: removing ReadRecPtr and EndRecPtr