On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:56 PM Mark Dilger
<mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 2021, at 9:33 AM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > This would not address the weirdness of the existing code where a
> > superuser loses their superuser privileges but still owns a
> > subscription. But perhaps we can solve that a different way, like just
> > performing a check when someone loses their superuser privileges that
> > they don't own any subscriptions.
>
> I gave that a slight amount of thought during the design of this patch, but didn't think we could refuse to revoke
superuseron such a basis, and didn't see what we should do with the subscription other than have it continue to be
ownedby the recently-non-superuser. If you have a better idea, we can discuss it, but to some degree I think that is
alsoorthogonal to the purpose of this patch. The only sense in which this patch depends on that issue is that this
patchproposes that non-superuser subscription owners are already an issue, and therefore that this patch isn't creating
anew issue, but rather making more sane something that already can happen.
>
Don't we want to close this gap irrespective of the other part of the
feature? I mean if we take out the part of your 0003 patch that checks
whether the current user has permission to perform a particular
operation on the target table then the gap related to the owner losing
superuser privileges should be addressed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
