public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
To: Jeff Davis <[email protected]>
Cc: Mark Dilger <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Non-superuser subscription owners
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 17:25:40 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA4eK1JJsBzJsStA_LYrJu0WmOG+tWXcS9G4mY1G4CsQVBcaQw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAA4eK1KHE_xmxk==CqTcTzceC_n00tRWBLm3DGUWhaaPTguz3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAA4eK1LBjtqHH2h4TO7FHG=FJRfygfkeEb7AFj-dh6rqg3xqUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAA4eK1KnEptxtJTzo9LNb2VgRBYcBWxY+NSx2hJR8iUM8JXktw@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAA4eK1K1=DbXCNfA32urxZga6YxeiCvcTHvJu-+BtLCtVgqJ2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 12:56 AM Jeff Davis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-11-29 at 09:43 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > The first reason is that way it would be consistent with what we can
> > see while doing the operations from the backend.
>
> Logical replication is not interactive, so it doesn't seem quite the
> same.
>
> If you have a long running INSERT INTO SELECT or COPY FROM, the
> permission checks just happen at the beginning. As a user, it wouldn't
> surprise me if logical replication was similar.
>
> > operation. Another reason is to make behavior predictable as users
> > can
> > always expect when exactly the privilege change will be reflected and
> > it won't depend on the number of changes in the transaction.
>
> This patch does detect ownership changes more quickly (at the
> transaction boundary) than the current code (only when it reloads for
> some other reason). Transaction boundary seems like a reasonable time
> to detect the change to me.
>
> Detecting faster might be nice, but I don't have a strong opinion about
> it and I don't see why it necessarily needs to happen before this patch
> goes in.
>

I think it would be better to do it before we allow subscription
owners to be non-superusers.

> Also, do you think the cost of doing maybe_reread_subscription() per-
> tuple instead of per-transaction would be detectable?
>

Yeah, it is possible that is why I suggested in one of the emails
above to allow changing the owners only for disabled subscriptions.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

view thread (68+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Non-superuser subscription owners
  In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1JJsBzJsStA_LYrJu0WmOG+tWXcS9G4mY1G4CsQVBcaQw@mail.gmail.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox