Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 18:59:11 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: chris+postgresql@qwirx.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Logical replication subscription owner
Message-ID: <20200422225911.GA10161@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200422174611.GX13712@tamriel.snowman.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-Apr-22, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:

> > I wonder if a better answer is to allow the connection when the
> > REPLICATION priv is granted, ignoring the LOGIN prov.
> 
> Erm, no, I wouldn't have thought that'd make sense- maybe someone
> specifically wants to stop allowing that role to login and they remove
> LOGIN?  That REPLICATION would override that would surely be surprising
> and counter-intuitive..

Well, I guess if somebody wants to stop replication, they can remove
the REPLICATION priv.

I had it in my mind that LOGIN was for regular (SQL-based) login, and
REPLICATION was for replication login, and that they were orthogonal.

You're saying that there's no way a role can have REPLICATION privs but
no LOGIN.  Is that sensible?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services