Hi, On 2023-03-25 12:16:35 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 09:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > I certainly agree that the security model isn't in a reasonable place > > right now. However, I feel that: > > > > (1) adding an extra predefined role > > > (2) even adding the connection string security stuff > > I don't see how these points are related to the question of whether you > should commit your non-superuser-subscription-owners patch or logical- > repl-as-table-owner patch first. > > > My perspective is that logical replication is an unfinished feature > with an incomplete design.
I agree with that much. > As I said earlier, that's why I backed away from trying to do non-superuser > subscriptions as a documented feature: it feels like we need to settle some > of the underlying pieces first. I don't agree. The patch allows to use logical rep in a far less dangerous fashion than now. The alternative is to release 16 without a real way to use logical rep less insanely. Which I think is work. > There are some big issues, like the security model for replaying > changes. That seems largely unrelated. > And some smaller issues like feature gaps (RLS doesn't work, > if I remember correctly, and maybe something with partitioning). Entirely unrelated? Greetings, Andres Freund