Greetings, * Bossart, Nathan (bossa...@amazon.com) wrote: > On 11/2/21, 11:27 AM, "Stephen Frost" <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > * Bossart, Nathan (bossa...@amazon.com) wrote: > >> The approach in the patch looks alright to me, but another one could > >> be to build a SelectStmt when parsing CHECKPOINT. I think that'd > >> simplify the standard_ProcessUtility() changes. > > > > For my 2c, at least, I'm not really partial to either approach, though > > I'd want to see what error messages end up looking like. Seems like we > > might want to exercise a bit more control than we'd be able to if we > > transformed it directly into a SelectStmt (that is, we might add a HINT: > > roles with execute rights on pg_checkpoint() can run this command, or > > something; maybe not too tho). > > I don't feel strongly one way or the other as well, but you have a > good point about extra control over the error messages. The latest > patch just does a standard aclcheck_error(), so you'd probably see > "permission denied for function" if you didn't have privileges for > CHECKPOINT. That could be confusing.
Yeah, that's exactly the thing I was thinking about that might seem odd. I don't think it's a huge deal but I do think it'd be good for us to at least think about if we're ok with that or if we want to try and do something a bit better. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature