On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:51:51AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:29:39AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I do not think it follows that being table owner should
>> entitle you to such low-level access. I'm inclined to reject
>> this proposal.
>
> -1 here, too. IMHO all of pageinspect should remain superuser-only since
> it is meant for development/debugging. The proposal doesn't describe a
> use-case for the relaxed privileges, either.
Same. We've always wanted this module to be superuser-only, with
superuser hardcoded checks and not even execution ACLs.
--
Michael