Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 12:35:28 +0100
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Pavel Luzanov <p.luzanov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
	Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: add \dpS to psql
Message-ID: <20221208113528.xfsa7c2f6bu7up3m@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1c031553-46d8-e1cd-4f64-caa349f111f9@postgrespro.ru>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20221208113528.xfsa7c2f6bu7up3m%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-Dec-08, Pavel Luzanov wrote:

> For the complete picture, I tried to see what other actions with the table
> could *potentially* be considered as maintenance.
> Here is the list:
> 
> - create|alter|drop on extended statistics objects
> - alter table|index alter column set statistics
> - alter table|index [re]set (storage_parameters)
> - alter table|index set tablespace
> - alter table alter column set storage|compression
> - any actions with the TOAST table that can be performed separately from the
> main table

Well, I can't see that any of these is valuable to grant separately from
the table's owner.  The maintenance ones are the ones that are
interesting to run from a database-owner perspective, but these ones do
not seem to need that treatment.

If you're extremely generous you could think that ALTER .. SET STORAGE
would be reasonable to be run by the db-owner.  However, that's not
something you do on an ongoing basis -- you just do it once -- so it
seems pointless.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/