Message-ID: <18b267939a9d1ae27e9b3643d53395f4e29ea6ce.camel@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: Non-superuser subscription owners
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>, Andrew Dunstan
 <andrew@dunslane.net>, PostgreSQL-development
 <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,  Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 12:06:36 -0800
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4eK1KnEptxtJTzo9LNb2VgRBYcBWxY+NSx2hJR8iUM8JXktw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9DFC88D3-1300-4DE8-ACBC-4CEF84399A53@enterprisedb.com>
	 <c1c334a2-5d85-687f-f0dc-0ac8c422ca1a@dunslane.net>
	 <CD02D159-7260-4247-888F-2CFA7AD3798D@enterprisedb.com>
	 <6BB4451E-7B1B-474C-BD1F-DB7531E720C6@enterprisedb.com>
	 <aa28945f9f348307c8ac833a937b5fca732668b8.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <6A2B0FF6-CC86-48CE-B0D3-5401AA5CFEA9@enterprisedb.com>
	 <b6f6ed921b6e219875801857204b14bbc8782e5e.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <CF56AC0D-7495-4E8D-A48F-FF38BD8074EB@enterprisedb.com>
	 <CAA4eK1KHE_xmxk==CqTcTzceC_n00tRWBLm3DGUWhaaPTguz3A@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1BB0A553-3FE9-4A91-A975-6F9D8C157FBD@enterprisedb.com>
	 <CAA4eK1LBjtqHH2h4TO7FHG=FJRfygfkeEb7AFj-dh6rqg3xqUA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CC5DAC9C-F767-4256-BFEF-32D5A566D254@enterprisedb.com>
	 <7C62876F-5D19-4B5C-96AC-5590B10A49B2@enterprisedb.com>
	 <66f55a6b9ff7bdd6bfd0d05e8fd8351690e69e23.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <CAA4eK1KnEptxtJTzo9LNb2VgRBYcBWxY+NSx2hJR8iUM8JXktw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/18b267939a9d1ae27e9b3643d53395f4e29ea6ce.camel%40j-davis.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2021-11-25 at 09:51 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Won't it be better to just check if the current user is superuser
> before applying each change as a matter of this first patch? Sorry, I
> was under impression that first, we want to close the current gap
> where we allow to proceed with replication if the user's superuser
> privileges were revoked during replication.

That could be a first step, and I don't oppose it. But it seems like a
very small first step that would be made obsolete when v3-0001 is
ready, which I think will be very soon.

>  To allow non-superusers
> owners, I thought it might be better to first try to detect the
> change
> of ownership

In the case of revoked superuser privileges, there's no change in
ownership, just a change of privileges (SUPERUSER -> NOSUPERUSER). And
if we're detecting a change of privileges, why not just do it in
something closer to the right way, which is what v3-0001 is attempting
to do.

>  as soon as possible instead of at the transaction
> boundary.

I don't understand why it's important to detect a loss of privileges
faster than a transaction boundary. Can you elaborate?

Regards,
	Jeff Davis