Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT.
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-10-26T20:02:55Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Greetings, * Jeff Davis (pgsql@j-davis.com) wrote: > On Tue, 2021-10-26 at 00:07 +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > > It feels a bit excessive to introduce a new predefined role just for > > this. Perhaps this could be accomplished with a new function that > > could be granted. > > It would be nice if the syntax could be used, since it's pretty > widespread. I guess it does feel excessive to have its own predefined > role, but at the same time it's hard to group a command like CHECKPOINT > into a category. Maybe if we named it something like pg_performance or > something we could make a larger group? For the use-case presented, I don't really buy off on this argument. We're talking about benchmarking tools, surely they can be and likely already are updated with some regularity for new major versions of PG. I wonder also if there aren't other things besides this that would need to be changed for them to work as a non-superuser anyway too, meaning this would be just one change among others that they'd need to make. In this specific case, I'd be more inclined to provide a function rather than an explicit predefined role for this one thing. Thanks, Stephen
Commits
-
Add pg_checkpointer predefined role for CHECKPOINT command.
- 4168a4745492 15.0 landed