On Sat, Jan 07, 2023 at 11:18:59AM +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> It might be true that temp tables aren't usually interesting from a
> permissions point of view, but it's not hard to imagine situations
> where interesting things do happen. It's also probably the case that
> most users won't have
On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 at 00:36, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 06:52:33PM +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> >
> > So I think we should use the same SQL clauses as every other psql
> > command that supports "S", namely:
> >
> > if (!showSystem && !pattern)
> >
On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 06:52:33PM +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Looking this over this, I have a couple of comments:
Thanks for reviewing.
> Firstly, I think it should allow \zS in the same fashion as \dpS,
> since \z is an alias for \dp, so the 2 should be kept in sync.
That seems reasonable
On Wed, 28 Dec 2022 at 21:26, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 02:46:23PM +0300, Maxim Orlov wrote:
> > The patch applies with no problem, implements what it declared, CF bot is
> > happy.
> > Without patch \dpS shows 0 rows, after applying system objects are shown.
> > Consider
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 02:46:23PM +0300, Maxim Orlov wrote:
> The patch applies with no problem, implements what it declared, CF bot is
> happy.
> Without patch \dpS shows 0 rows, after applying system objects are shown.
> Consider this patch useful, hope it will be committed soon.
Thanks for
> Here it is: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/41/4043/
>
Hi!
The patch applies with no problem, implements what it declared, CF bot is
happy.
Without patch \dpS shows 0 rows, after applying system objects are shown.
Consider this patch useful, hope it will be committed soon.
--
Best regards,
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 07:01:01AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 2022-12-09 Fr 13:44, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Any thoughts on $SUBJECT?
>
> Yeah, the discussion got way off into the weeds here. I think the
> original proposal seems reasonable. Please add it to the next CF if you
> haven't
On 2022-12-09 Fr 13:44, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 10:40:55AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 01:36:03PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 09:15:03AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
The main idea behind this work is breaking
On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 10:40:55AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 01:36:03PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 09:15:03AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>>> The main idea behind this work is breaking out privileges into more
>>> granular pieces. If I
On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 01:36:03PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 09:15:03AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> The main idea behind this work is breaking out privileges into more
>> granular pieces. If I want to create a role that only runs VACUUM on some
>> tables on the
On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 09:15:03AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> The main idea behind this work is breaking out privileges into more
> granular pieces. If I want to create a role that only runs VACUUM on some
> tables on the weekend, why ѕhould I have to also give it the ability to
> ANALYZE,
I've created a new thread for making CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW,
and REINDEX grantable:
https://postgr.es/m/20221208183707.GA55474%40nathanxps13
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 12:15:23AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
>> On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 11:48:20PM -0500, Isaac Morland wrote:
>>> My previous analysis
>>> shows that there is no vast hidden demand for new privilege bits. If we
>>> implement MAINTAIN to control access to
On 2022-Dec-08, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
> For the complete picture, I tried to see what other actions with the table
> could *potentially* be considered as maintenance.
> Here is the list:
>
> - create|alter|drop on extended statistics objects
> - alter table|index alter column set statistics
> -
On 08.12.2022 07:48, Isaac Morland wrote:
If we implement MAINTAIN to control access to VACUUM, ANALYZE,
REFRESH, CLUSTER, and REINDEX, we will cover everything that I can
find that has seriously discussed on this list
I like this approach with MAINTAIN privilege. I'm trying to find any
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 11:48:20PM -0500, Isaac Morland wrote:
>> My previous analysis
>> shows that there is no vast hidden demand for new privilege bits. If we
>> implement MAINTAIN to control access to VACUUM, ANALYZE, REFRESH, CLUSTER,
>> and REINDEX, we will cover
On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 at 00:07, Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 11:48:20PM -0500, Isaac Morland wrote:
> > For what it's worth, I wouldn't bother changing the format of the
> > permission bits to expand the pool of available bits.
>
> 7b37823 expanded AclMode to 64 bits, so we now
On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 11:48:20PM -0500, Isaac Morland wrote:
> For what it's worth, I wouldn't bother changing the format of the
> permission bits to expand the pool of available bits.
7b37823 expanded AclMode to 64 bits, so we now have room for 16 additional
privileges (after the addition of
On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 at 23:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
> > I haven't formed an opinion on whether VACUUM FULL should get its own
> bit,
> > but FWIW І just finished writing the first draft of a patch set to add
> bits
> > for CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW, and REINDEX. I
On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 11:25:32PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The fact that we just doubled the number of available bits doesn't
> mean we should immediately strive to use them up. Perhaps it'd
> be better to subsume these retail privileges under some generic
> "maintenance action" privilege?
Nathan Bossart writes:
> I haven't formed an opinion on whether VACUUM FULL should get its own bit,
> but FWIW І just finished writing the first draft of a patch set to add bits
> for CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW, and REINDEX. I plan to post that
> tomorrow.
The fact that we just doubled
On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 08:39:30PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I think if vacuum privilege allows vacuum full, then it ought to also
> allow cluster. But I suggest that it'd be even better if it doesn't
> allow either, and there was a separate privilege for those.
>
> Disclaimer: I have not
On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 10:48:49AM +0300, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
> Furthermore. The VACUUM privilege allows you to also execute VACUUM FULL.
> VACUUM and VACUUM FULL are commands with similar names, but work completely
> differently.
> It may be worth clarifying on this page:
>
On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 10:48:49AM +0300, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
> There is a very similar command to VACUUM FULL with a different name -
> CLUSTER.
> The VACUUM privilege does not apply to the CLUSTER command. This is probably
> correct.
> However, the documentation for the CLUSTER command does not
On 06.12.2022 22:36, Nathan Bossart wrote:
As discussed elsewhere [0], \dp doesn't show privileges on system objects,
and this behavior is not mentioned in the docs. I've attached a small
patch that adds support for the S modifier (i.e., \dpS) and the adjusts the
docs.
Thoughts?
[0]
Hi hackers,
As discussed elsewhere [0], \dp doesn't show privileges on system objects,
and this behavior is not mentioned in the docs. I've attached a small
patch that adds support for the S modifier (i.e., \dpS) and the adjusts the
docs.
Thoughts?
[0]
26 matches
Mail list logo
