On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:56 PM Mark Dilger <mark.dil...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 17, 2021, at 9:33 AM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > > > > > This would not address the weirdness of the existing code where a > > superuser loses their superuser privileges but still owns a > > subscription. But perhaps we can solve that a different way, like just > > performing a check when someone loses their superuser privileges that > > they don't own any subscriptions. > > I gave that a slight amount of thought during the design of this patch, but > didn't think we could refuse to revoke superuser on such a basis, and didn't > see what we should do with the subscription other than have it continue to be > owned by the recently-non-superuser. If you have a better idea, we can > discuss it, but to some degree I think that is also orthogonal to the purpose > of this patch. The only sense in which this patch depends on that issue is > that this patch proposes that non-superuser subscription owners are already > an issue, and therefore that this patch isn't creating a new issue, but > rather making more sane something that already can happen. >
Don't we want to close this gap irrespective of the other part of the feature? I mean if we take out the part of your 0003 patch that checks whether the current user has permission to perform a particular operation on the target table then the gap related to the owner losing superuser privileges should be addressed. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
