On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 3:46 AM Zheng Li <zhengli10@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We have not discussed much about the ownership of replicated objects.
> Currently, replicated
> objects belong to the subscription owner. However, it makes sense to
> allow replicated
> objects to keep the same owner from the publisher for certain use
> cases otherwise users
> may need to run lots of ALTER TABLE/OBJ OWNER TO manually. This issue
> has been raised in [1] and [2].
>
> I've implemented a prototype to allow replicated objects to have the
> same owner from the publisher in
> v69-0008-Allow-replicated-objects-to-have-the-same-owner-from.patch.
>
I also think it would be a helpful addition for users. A few points
that come to my mind are: (a) Shouldn't the role have the same
priveliges (for ex. rolbypassrls or rolsuper) on both sides before we
allow this? (b) Isn't it better to first have a replication of roles?
I think if we have (b) then it would be probably a bit easier because
if the subscription has allowed replicating roles and we can confirm
that the role is replicated then we don't need to worry about the
differences.
Now, coming to implementation, won't it be better if we avoid sending
the owner to the subscriber unless it is changed for the replicated
command? Consider the current case of tables where we send schema only
if it is changed. This is not a direct mapping but it would be better
to avoid sending additional information and then process it on the
subscriber for each command.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
