> On Jan 30, 2023, at 9:26 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> First, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to have one person
> managing the publications and someone else managing the subscriptions,
> and especially if those parties are mutually untrusting. I can't think
> of any real reason to set things up that way. Sure, you could, but why
> would you? You could, equally, decide that one member of your
> household was going to decide what's for dinner every night, and some
> other member of your household was going to decide what gets purchased
> at the grocery store each week. If those two people exercise their
> responsibilities without tight coordination, or with hostile intent
> toward each other, things are going to go badly, but that's not an
> argument for putting a combination lock on the flour canister. It's an
> argument for getting along better, or not having such a dumb system in
> the first place. I don't quite see how the situation you postulate in
> (A) and (B) is any different. Publications and subscriptions are as
> closely connected as food purchases and meals. The point of a
> publication is for it to connect up to a subscription.
I have a grim view of the requirement that publishers and subscribers trust
each other. Even when they do trust each other, they can firewall attacks by
acting as if they do not.
> In what
> circumstances would be it be reasonable to give responsibility for
> those objects to different and especially mutually untrusting users?
When public repositories of data, such as the IANA whois database, publish
their data via postgres publications.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
