Re: [16] ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET (run_as_owner = ...) is a no-op
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, "pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org" <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>,
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-09-11T11:49:02Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 10:46 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, September 10, 2023 4:43 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote: > > > > > > Repro: > > ALTER SUBSCRIPTION s1 SET (run_as_owner = true); > > SELECT subrunasowner FROM pg_subscription WHERE subname='s1'; > > subrunasowner > > --------------- > > f > > (1 row) > > > > Thanks for reporting. I can also reproduce the issue. I think it's because we > didn't reflect the option change on catalog. Here is a small patch 0001 to fix it. > Your fix looks good to me. > > It also looks like a change to that field may not cause the subscription worker to > > restart. It would be good to add a test for that case. > > Currently, the changes on run_as_owner won't cause the worker to restart > because we don't need to rebuild the connection in this case. The option change > will be caught by apply worker in next loop and the later changes will be > applied using the new option. the 0002 patch adds a test to verfiy it, just to > show how it behaves. > Is there a reason to not include 0002 in the commit? Shall we push this before 16 or wait for it? I don't if we have enough time or if it is worth pushing at the last minute. I can take care of pushing this tomorrow morning if we decide that it is okay to go ahead with this unless Jeff or Robert pushes it. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
Commits
-
Fix the ALTER SUBSCRIPTION to reflect the change in run_as_owner option.
- a81e5516fa4b 16.1 landed
- f062cddafe6b 17.0 landed