Greetings, * Jeff Davis (pg...@j-davis.com) wrote: > On Tue, 2021-10-26 at 00:07 +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > > It feels a bit excessive to introduce a new predefined role just for > > this. Perhaps this could be accomplished with a new function that > > could be granted. > > It would be nice if the syntax could be used, since it's pretty > widespread. I guess it does feel excessive to have its own predefined > role, but at the same time it's hard to group a command like CHECKPOINT > into a category. Maybe if we named it something like pg_performance or > something we could make a larger group?
For the use-case presented, I don't really buy off on this argument. We're talking about benchmarking tools, surely they can be and likely already are updated with some regularity for new major versions of PG. I wonder also if there aren't other things besides this that would need to be changed for them to work as a non-superuser anyway too, meaning this would be just one change among others that they'd need to make. In this specific case, I'd be more inclined to provide a function rather than an explicit predefined role for this one thing. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
