On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Petr Jelinek <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > My understanding of what Shephen is proposing is, you have "ownerA" of > tableA and "ownerB" of tableB, then you want role "publishe"r to be able > to publish those, so you simply grant it the "ownerA" and "ownerB" > roles. Obviously that might is many situations mean that the "publisher" > role potentially also gets sweeping privileges to other tables which may > not be desirable.
I didn't hear Stephen propose that "publish" should be a role-attribute, and I don't understand why that would be a good idea. Presumably, we don't want unprivileged users to be able to fire up logical replication because that involves making connections to other systems from the PostgreSQL operating system user's account, and that should be a privileged operation. But that's the subscriber side, not the publisher side. I don't otherwise follow Stephen's argument. It seems like he's complaining that PUBLISH might give more access to the relation than SELECT, but, uh, that's what granting additional privileges does in general, by definition. Mostly we consider that a feature, not a bug. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
