On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:43 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@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? -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
