Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 20:51:47 -0700
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
	Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>,
	"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
	Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: predefined role(s) for VACUUM and ANALYZE
Message-ID: <20220920035147.GA114383@nathanxps13>
References: 
 <CA+Tgmoa7jS1uvq2s+GLWbCT6e1wH2thfSBHbsF88rtg+Dd4PaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220823234647.GB31055@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <20220905185630.GA1961927@nathanxps13>
 <20220906151151.GB26002@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <CA+Tgmobi96u71+ChcrtGoymwp=9YzMGCu_vhnDp_avawV96Uyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220906155432.GA1963795@nathanxps13>
 <20220907211343.GE26002@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <20220907221103.GA2095022@nathanxps13>
 <CAOuzzgr60X+pnVphekO=WnAwGo9pTbo9ZG_GK4nFaR=Dxqd1hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoaQExEDdRmQsFCd955dxCypDBeA_FOrUKCLNWAdQ69zxg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoaQExEDdRmQsFCd955dxCypDBeA_FOrUKCLNWAdQ69zxg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220920035147.GA114383%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 09:41:20AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Now on the other hand, I also do think we need more privilege bits.
> You're not alone in making the case that this is a problem which needs
> to be solved, and the set of other people who are also making that
> argument includes me. At the same time, there is certainly a double
> standard here. When Andrew and Tom committed
> d11e84ea466b4e3855d7bd5142fb68f51c273567 and
> a0ffa885e478f5eeacc4e250e35ce25a4740c487 respectively, we used up 2 of
> the remaining 4 bits, bits which other people would have liked to have
> used up years ago and they were told "no you can't." I don't believe I
> would have been willing to commit those patches without doing
> something to solve this problem, because I would have been worried
> about getting yelled at by Tom. But now here we are with only 2 bits
> left instead of 4, and we're telling the next patch author - who is
> not Tom - that he's on the hook to solve the problem.
> 
> Well, we do need to solve the problem. But we're not necessarily being
> fair about how the work involved gets distributed. It's a heck of a
> lot easier for a committer to get something committed to address this
> issue than a non-committer, and it's a heck of a lot easier for a
> committer to ignore the fact that the problem hasn't been solved and
> press ahead anyway, and yet somehow we're trying to dump a problem
> that's a decade in the making on Nathan. I'm not exactly sure what to
> propose as an alternative, but that doesn't seem quite fair.

Are there any concerns with simply expanding AclMode to 64 bits, as done in
v5 [0]?

[0] https://postgr.es/m/20220908055035.GA2100193%40nathanxps13

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com