On 10/30/21, 11:14 AM, "Jeff Davis" <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2021-10-30 at 13:24 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: >> IMHO, moving away from SQL command "CHECKPOINT" to function >> "pg_checkpoint()" isn't nice as the SQL command has been there for a >> long time and all the applications or services that were/are being >> built around the postgres ecosystem would have to adapt someday to >> the >> new function (if at all we deprecate the command and onboard the >> function). This isn't good at all given the CHECKPOINT is one of the >> mostly used commands in the apps or services layer. Moreover, if we >> go >> with the function pg_checkpoint(), we might see patches coming in for >> pg_vacuum(), pg_reindex(), pg_cluster() and so on. > > I tend to agree with all of this. The CHECKPOINT command is already > there and people already use it. If we are already chipping away at the > need for superuser elsewhere, we should offer a way to use CHECKPOINT > without being superuser.
I think Bharath brings up some good points. The simple fact is that CHECKPOINT has been around for a while, and creating functions for maintenance tasks would add just as much or more clutter than adding a predefined role for each one. I do wonder what we would've done if CHECKPOINT didn't already exist. Based on the goal of this thread, I get the feeling that we might've seriously considered introducing it as a function so that you can just GRANT EXECUTE as needed. Nathan
