On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 12:25:03PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote: > In my opinion, the behavior change is probably OK, but not > back-patchable.
Thanks. I see three votes in favor of not back-patching (you, Horiguchi-san and Nathan), so that won't happen. > I think that the documentation could be phrased more clearly. If I > understand the proposed semantics, something like this might be about > right: > > Reindexing a single index or table requires being the owner of that > index or table. Reindexing a schema or database requires being the > owner of that schema or database. Note that is therefore sometimes > possible for non-superusers to rebuild indexes of tables owner by other > users; however, as a special exception, when <command>REINDEX > DATABASE</command> or <command>REINDEX SCHEMA</> is > issued by a non-superuser, indexes on shared catalogs will be skipped > unless the user owns the catalog (which typically won't be the case). > Of course, superusers can always reindex anything. I quite like what you are proposing here. I'll reuse that, I hope you don't mind ;) -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
