Hi,
On 2021-11-08 12:23:18 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> If we're actually worried about catalog corruption (and, frankly, I've
> got some serious doubts that jumping in and running CHECKPOINT; by hand
> is a great idea if there's such active corruption)
I've been there when recovering from corruption.
> though I continue to feel like the function based approach is better.
I think it's a somewhat ugly hack.
> then we must use such an approach no matter how we allow non-superusers to
> run the command because any approach to that necessarily involves some
> amount of catalog access.
As long as there's no additional catalog access when the user is known to be a
superuser, then I think it's fine. There's a difference between doing one
pg_authid read for superuser - with a fallback to automatically assuming a
user if one couldn't be found - and doing a full pg_proc read with several
subsidiary pg_type reads etc.
Greetings,
Andres Freund