Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 07:31:55 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, chris+postgresql@qwirx.com,
	pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Logical replication subscription owner
Message-ID: <20200423113155.GC13712@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20200422225911.GA10161@alvherre.pgsql>
 <8465.1587597281@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DZGCK+FyHJhY5w/A"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8465.1587597281@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk


--DZGCK+FyHJhY5w/A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > 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.
>=20
> Yeah, that's what I would've expected.  Otherwise, is REPLICATION
> without LOGIN useful at all?

No, but it's less surprising, at least to me, for all roles that login
to require having the LOGIN right.  Having REPLICATION ignore that would
be surprising (and a change from today).  Maybe if we called it
REPLICATIONLOGIN or something along those lines it would be less
surprising, but it still seems pretty awkward.

I view REPLICATION as allowing a specific kind of connection, but you
first need to be able to login.

Also- what about per-database connections?  Does having REPLICATION mean
you get to override the CONNECT privileges on a database, if you're
connecting for the purposes of doing logical replication?

I agree we could do better in these areas, but I'd argue that's mostly
around improving the documentation rather than baking in implications
that one privilege implies another.  We certainly get people who
complain about getting a permission denied error when they have UPDATE
rights on a table (but not SELECT) and they include a WHERE clause in
their update statement, but that doesn't mean we should assume that
having UPDATE rights means you also get SELECT rights, just because
UPDATE is next to useless without SELECT.

Thanks,

Stephen

--DZGCK+FyHJhY5w/A
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJeoXyrAAoJEO1sijiDR2RVYdoP/ApgG66tuzU2EN3Kwi/KQkVF
HdzkxmrLRueEchrPXLtDyJe0SjxrPsjwqsqDTmfl3mTd0KIzhhsasXMp0H3qQxYM
jMfvyelsX8P9LMJrxkycSgKF4kQhgcDTdZcDIMRCjcCihqwBv5uNWbHntySv077F
uq5qZTn7jTEtUcWNomIKyOTe/c/qQqi4J5ele2NJoxugW5rAQ7y44sAjBgrRILQ7
GSkFqgWFZFXdmu2z9MAm5UQiOIns4Z3xFRnqGEw7Wv1UEthxFL5yveWHnPPrwjwK
BvbhX7uVglIaOu3MD3ZaHQuLWN6s8IWmyRQ/fBEVKWjF8VJnHuhfIlmQdnEbwb2t
TQVJibMBmVPgSEDrDmd+Q5899BGB0HONLjZ9mFjeprgN5cmF5D85uYJRlhl2i82K
FEFXArBpOfz2gZV9fw29pRA7bccA6HjbCzXTOakoSa+00nY4IOHRI0WNkgUAi8VU
Evqe6YJOfSs54v7lIIc1VZkSashMDy1QCRE4oBTS0nn0RnX+oaO4PnLOFiasV9GG
5kE95r22+X6Y6oV9GzAp3ELaiBfrMfyroJF/P4z6bx992lxDKj8shYsJXSph3Nwv
Q/LqMeEx/J2WEbZKwfT8RQC3HbtVO/IWoOf99IAMhlYG0kP1kahHL/A/qiV2Q98D
R6zP/rV7TUKKpIIoVzYt
=b/C6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--DZGCK+FyHJhY5w/A--