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 1mo5m4-00058H-BY for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 15:26:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mo5m3-0006nl-88 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 15:25:59 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mo5m2-0006nb-L9 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 15:25:58 +0000 Received: from mail-pj1-x102c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mo5lx-0008ME-Nq for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 15:25:58 +0000 Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id x7so8230895pjn.0 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 07:25:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=enterprisedb.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=MV0vGOjmtNgAjT7m1j3XGVrYJQ3Z5bXqH/sbttXu5k4=; b=lI+yedJnORa2Gpm4ztLJAYh0hAFOycB9mnaoFg1Z9IWjGgvGkkBe3XIlnaKCXP5HZu 1Rf0PvXCCRhWcqbOv6JDI/a7tzMNTXMUIaXF+XD81/KHA80dOzz4YOzc9T0xuPDDXuK3 wlx+i7Ryw2qD+vcgj+s0y+oUgfcLCEz+mlTDFgKm54Sr0Ltoe9UQ34bs3fKPO5alTpz8 d9PAjdhjRYr5hnhVaSx1hT7edmFPNqql2XZZ2Yuj0x4I+Bcdt/cWEw1OlBT8SKCZP/hE ea4Y1+6HOGrbXcA5F7sSawFBlHA5ocNPdM2HD0kRDlrNWCcakv4WaZEuBFMgvTqAF4fH fijQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=MV0vGOjmtNgAjT7m1j3XGVrYJQ3Z5bXqH/sbttXu5k4=; b=Y64UwkojR2q/hV5qXP91nZNQCfM6W59/AIjLK8kbz0EbaHalpEFbkyNgEE6gUoLe6c nj3CykDXzRzjR9lAx/5DXVwWZF4jSu+9NmjhfjHuPCkKYQZnWckXd2/SgB6THbmfrflr SeI4Ug3EKH2yfOwAV7vqdMWCmd6Vgi7O+AytiSfPFujorzJClyeGc+nPu3+Fsnqr5OUr fhjjGAU+dWrqV/n7AEwLbblR/QgSTu6MDqm6SBcNEC6RFzGTLxgDLMD1q51myDWNZ/zV +9wfaEwLxx7n+IC4VeCN4e8FLX96tYfHPLmSCkIumIT3NKD3a5h5UKUia0hLhmj+hqMz 4tZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531QR1fHKmUqD6i8Ya8LuNaHWXq7ckqOVOLfQz61dz3vulRK3sxK lf/D4touFC3U779muxRwKQ7ivx4KGnaAYgrQHfaDl3en+biXCOnc+TghhFdsHoXDnUvQMD7KiZN QjxPF4q7oAVKs4SjtoXPolLTH4UfjR24+biEpHR9a1aije0jySCQVQzZP82UpR3UAOuBczA3kzf 4S4Q8UzCmKY6CzP8aZ+snFevxiwRe8Hu9E9y7z X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxkf4uNtp5jOkxZwD7WwYEZ/zZKgWpqFk9N+7YB3iSrAUu8B5RPt/4rhvxrARh4/+iKhXmDiQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d50d:b0:141:ea03:5193 with SMTP id b13-20020a170902d50d00b00141ea035193mr77493529plg.89.1637335551419; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 07:25:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from laptop280-ma-us.hitronhub.home (24-113-193-150.wavecable.com. [24.113.193.150]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u32sm34943pfg.220.2021.11.19.07.25.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 19 Nov 2021 07:25:50 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\)) Subject: Re: Non-superuser subscription owners From: Mark Dilger In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 07:25:49 -0800 Cc: Andrew Dunstan , PostgreSQL-development , Robert Haas Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <9DFC88D3-1300-4DE8-ACBC-4CEF84399A53@enterprisedb.com> <6BB4451E-7B1B-474C-BD1F-DB7531E720C6@enterprisedb.com> <6A2B0FF6-CC86-48CE-B0D3-5401AA5CFEA9@enterprisedb.com> <1BB0A553-3FE9-4A91-A975-6F9D8C157FBD@enterprisedb.com> To: Amit Kapila , Jeff Davis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7) X-CLOUD-SEC-AV-Info: enterprisedb,google_mail,monitor X-CLOUD-SEC-AV-Sent: true X-Gm-Spam: 0 X-Gm-Phishy: 0 List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk > On Nov 19, 2021, at 1:44 AM, Amit Kapila = wrote: >=20 > I think we are saying the same thing. I intend to say that your 0003* > patch closes the current gap in the code and we should consider > applying it irrespective of what we do with respect to changing the > ... OWNER TO .. behavior. Is there a reason why 0003* patch (or > something on those lines) shouldn't be considered to be applied? Jeff Davis and I had a long conversation off-list yesterday and reached = the same conclusion. I will be submitting a version of 0003 which does = not depend on the prior two patches. =E2=80=94 Mark Dilger EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company