Hi Marcos, Thanks for the update.
On 18/02/2026 20:20, Marcos Magueta wrote: > Here's the v6 with the docs updated and some minor things. Unfortunately, the patch no longer applies.[1] > I was trying to figure out how to do the roles, and I have some thoughts > on it now. While I am not particularly against predefined roles, I think > we should be careful before committing to them in this form. As > predefined roles, they would effectively become part of a long-term > public interface: once they exist, we should then carry them forward and > preserve their semantics across releases, so adding a feature-specific > role increases permanent surface area (docs, tests, upgrade behavior, > compatibility expectations) and is harder to revisit later if the > privilege model evolves (which I think will make people mad, it's XML > burden after all). > > Also, a write-oriented role is not as straightforward as I thought with > the current ownership model (and that's me guessing here). Mutating DDL > behavior is still owner-driven (or superuser-driven) most of the places, > not purely ACL-driven, so a pg_write_xmlschemas role can look clearer at > first glance than it is in practice. To make that role fully consistent, > we may need broader policy decisions around what should be grantable > versus what should remain ownership-based, not just new role entries. > Again, I am not opposed to the idea, but these made me a bit anxious to > simply add them. What are your thoughts on these? The creation of XML schemas does not need to be specifically controlled by predefined roles - it was just the first thing that came to mind. My concern was that leaving it entirely open to any user could lead to unwanted CPU or memory usage. Perhaps the other reviewers have a different opinion on this. Best, Jim 1 - https://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_6372.log
