Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qBfMw-0003au-C2 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 17:42:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qBfMv-0007w9-As for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 17:42:17 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qBfMv-0007w0-1n for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 17:42:17 +0000 Received: from mail-pf1-x435.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::435]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qBfMs-003HWC-FF for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 17:42:15 +0000 Received: by mail-pf1-x435.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-666ecb21f86so3856451b3a.3 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:42:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1687282933; x=1689874933; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=LhuCfBPN0Q2luqMTRtUNbRMmaIn9oxOjFdhg5OpR8sQ=; b=fCIReaMn23hnmji9y6+coQ1XrkjIX9kWrVbLKpiI2140f3xPeb8J4eAMHamoPyDcXc mIVVBEDoYz4R2yRLczNT64fYMmRX3rwsGHW8qXsccj750aJxGZQQjF5wGr5sEmYDMYkg holrYzaX3auADoh0EnrMufxfMW3X3S5YAKC8JF+Gp2+hcf6pR+oM2toRxEuwyog86CgE udYntdElgKCMg5K6CNrj8lxBV7pV0n6j0X66exqEbX/w8hnBnGpjxktfTfjhdZS9WBF4 zHKc9P7UZ3sWMnQ+bXVJsJ1KajJankmyxOYHbME3Z3veLL4aeOsq4rgVQrr92ljh897G ElGg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1687282933; x=1689874933; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=LhuCfBPN0Q2luqMTRtUNbRMmaIn9oxOjFdhg5OpR8sQ=; b=aslExPgBdZehzeIVmcqxggkL/kT0Uejj4FQsgbk2bvdUF6c0FqpbR4mm/1B2fUWtaO MSFacyJV3Xdl8QqEfJCVBKY4QMb9vzjXaaGrcWkr3N006VWNoAiW8fUri3dGj5+5uasY 5QSko43Kmw7qVfkTAx5l6TqbRyS+F5q6Chaw0zpGOhGqGprJISh0HsaFt7pn01vy76so 8qxpNOuZxo9Ko0aNeGrjjhqR+0xBo7tVlEmoDUB3DBI31NqEaeHlT92Ix1HWFuoEMt7o 549vuIhVG2hHj5v0f2uLgyoxIJJX+92YQSxr0jtq9EwkpQ+wYDzyhumbqH+SdbxQh2oy 2QsQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDx7je2028qS+z4poUSXIb2AA/OIZV5litn3Ob/mBF+1febWeQe3 HSCza+2CvAlMXQk2t2ipbGc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6H+BefS/fAF/AukCRDsh4ycRJEFJDl0GQF5mWIcElgBZIckF88jKEzWfojEWgpOtX/iigYcg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:198f:b0:662:56b4:c2f2 with SMTP id d15-20020a056a00198f00b0066256b4c2f2mr18063838pfl.25.1687282933477; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nathanxps13 ([50.47.162.83]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z15-20020aa785cf000000b006475f831838sm1596499pfn.30.2023.06.20.10.42.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:42:10 -0700 From: Nathan Bossart To: Jeff Davis Cc: Michael Paquier , Ted Yu , Pavel Luzanov , Justin Pryzby , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: allow granting CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW, and REINDEX Message-ID: <20230620174210.GB471329@nathanxps13> References: <20230613235442.GA222795@nathanxps13> <20230614181711.GA488295@nathanxps13> <20230615041044.GA736001@nathanxps13> <20230615235700.GA877311@nathanxps13> <20230616052025.GA1026700@nathanxps13> <20230619215534.GA442477@nathanxps13> <61b81ec0783aefbc59be06a3c3849118aa6199b9.camel@j-davis.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <61b81ec0783aefbc59be06a3c3849118aa6199b9.camel@j-davis.com> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 09:16:59AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Tue, 2023-06-20 at 14:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> TBH, I have a mixed feeling about this line of reasoning because >> MAINTAIN is much broader and less specific than TRUNCATE, for >> instance, being spawned across so much more operations. > > ... > >> Some users may find that surprising as they >> used to have more control over these operations as owners of the >> relations worked on. > > It seems like the user shouldn't be surprised if they can carry out the > action; nor should they be surprised if they can't carry out the > action. Having privileges revoked on a table from the table's owner is > an edge case in behavior and both make sense to me. > > In the absense of a use case, I'd be inclined towards just being > consistent with the other privileges. Agreed, I think we should make MAINTAIN consistent with the other grantable privileges. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com