On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 03:59:32PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 12:07:31PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > v12 introduced this regression. I suspect it started when commit e0c2933 "Use
> > catalog query to discover tables to process in vacuumdb" switched vacuumdb
> > from a simple "VACUUM;" command to per-table commands. Non-superuser vacuumdb
> > must be rare indeed for this to go unnoticed long enough to leave all
> > supported branches affected.
>
> I think the bug actually predates that commit, but it was only broken when
> --jobs > 1. Commit e0c2933 just broke the --jobs == 1 case, too.
Agreed.
> > That helps, but we'd probably want to do something more general about vacuumdb
> > and schema USAGE permission.
>
> Hm. I think filtering out schemas for which you lack USAGE makes sense
> when neither --schema nor --table are specified, but if the user lists an
> object they can't vacuum, we should probably fail. My current thinking is
> that we could still filter when --exclude-schema is used, but I'm curious
> what others think.
That all sounds good to me.
> You might also be interested in this thread about VACUUM and USAGE [0].
> [0] https://postgr.es/m/flat/56596b81-088f-4c0c-9a88-b5f27a7a62e9%40oss.nttdata.com
The outcome is odd, but I'm not worried about it.
