Re: Non-superuser subscription owners

[Mark Dilger]

> On Dec 2, 2021, at 1:29 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If we want to maintain the property that subscriptions can only be
> owned by superuser for your first version then isn't a simple check
> like ((!superuser()) for each of the operations is sufficient?

As things stand today, nothing prevents a superuser subscription owner from 
having superuser revoked.  The patch does nothing to change this.

> In (2), I am not clear what do you mean by "the old owner has
> privileges increased"? If the owners can only be superusers then what
> does it mean to increase the privileges.

The old owner may have had privileges reduced (no superuser, only permission to 
write into a specific schema, etc.) and the subscription enabled only after 
those privilege reductions were put in place.  This is a usage pattern this 
patch is intended to support, by honoring those privilege restrictions.

—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company