> On Oct 24, 2021, at 7:49 AM, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At this point, the idea of having a new role for maintenance work
> looks good. With this patch and Mark Dilger's patch introducing a
> bunch of new predefined roles, one concern is that we might reach to a
> state where we will have patches being proposed for new predefined
> roles for every database activity and the superuser eventually will
> have nothing to do in the database, it just becomes dummy?
>
> I'm not sure if Mark Dilger's patch on new predefined roles has a
> suitable/same role that we can use here.
If you refer to the ALTER SYSTEM SET patches, which I agree introduce a number of new predefined roles, it may interest
youthat Andrew has requested that I rework that patch set. In particular, he would like me to implement a new system
ofgrants whereby the authority to ALTER SYSTEM SET can be granted per GUC rather than having predefined roles which
hardcodedprivileges.
I have not withdrawn the ALTER SYSTEM SET patches yet, as I don't know if Andrew's proposal can be made to work, but I
wouldn'trecommend tying this pg_maintenance idea to that set.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company