On Thu, 2023-01-19 at 17:51 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > I don't think we need to support complicated restriction schemes > around this > now. I'm sure such needs exist, but I think there's more places where > a simple > "allowed/not allowed" suffices.
If we did follow a path like 3 (having some kind of other object represent the connection string), then it would create two different kinds of subscriptions that might be controlled different ways, and there might be some rough edges. Might also be fine, or we might never pursue 3. I feel like my words are being interpreted as though I don't want this feature. I do, and I'm happy Robert re-raised it. I'm just trying to answer his questions about why I set the work down, which is that I felt some groundwork should be done before proceeding to a documented feature, and I still feel that's the right thing. But (a) that's not a very strong objection; and (b) my efforts are better spent doing some of that groundwork than arguing about the order in which the work should be done. So, time permitting, I may be able to put out a patch or two for the next 'fest. -- Jeff Davis PostgreSQL Contributor Team - AWS
