On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:43 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 10:18:45AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Looks good. Maybe we should list the "role having sufficient permissions" > before superuser, "just because", but not something I feel strongly about.
Listing the superuser after sounds fine to me.
> The part about CHECKPOINT also looks pretty good, but that's entirely > unrelated, right? :)
Completely unrelated, but as we are on this part of the documentation now, and as we discussed that stuff face-to-face last September where I actually promised to write a patch without doing it for seven months, I see no problems to tackle this issue as well now. Better later than never :)
:) Nope, I definitely think we need to include that.
I would like to apply this down to 9.5 for the checkpoint part and down to 11 for the role part, so if anybody has any comments, please feel free.
All of it, or just the checkpoint part? I assume just the checkpoint part? AFAIK it does require superuser in those earlier versions?