At Tue, 26 Jul 2022 13:54:38 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote in
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 1:50 PM David G. Johnston
> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Still, it seems somewhat appealing to give
> >> people fine-grained control over this, rather than just "on" or "off".
> > Appealing enough to consume a couple of permission bits?
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKFQuwZ6dhjTFV7Bwmehe1N3%3Dk484y4mM22zuYjVEU2dq9V1aQ%40mail.gmail.com
>
> I think we're down to 0 remaining now, so it'd be hard to justify
> consuming 2 of 0 remaining bits. However, I maintain that the solution
> to this is either (1) change the aclitem representation to get another
> 32 bits or (2) invent a different system for less-commonly used
> permission bits. Checking permissions for SELECT or UPDATE has to be
> really fast, because most queries will need to do that sort of thing.
> If we represented VACUUM or ANALYZE in some other way in the catalogs
> that was more scalable but less efficient, it wouldn't be a big deal
> (although there's the issue of code duplication to consider).
I guess that we can use the last bit for ACL_SLOW_PATH or something
like. Furthermore we could move some existing ACL modeds to that slow
path to vacate some fast-ACL bits.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center