Re: REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re: [GENERAL] Postgres Permissions Article)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re: [GENERAL] Postgres Permissions Article) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 10730.1490982000@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re: [GENERAL] Postgres Permissions Article) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re:[GENERAL] Postgres Permissions Article)
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> The argument for not back-patching a bug fix usually boils down to >> fear of breaking existing applications, but it's hard to see how >> removal of a permission check could break a working application --- >> especially when the permission check is as hard to trigger as this one. >> How many table owners ever revoke their own REFERENCES permission? > Sure, but that argument cuts both ways. If nobody ever does that, who > will be helped by back-patching this? > I certainly agree that back-patching this change is pretty low risk. > I just don't think it has any real benefits. I think the benefit is reduction of user confusion. Admittedly, since Paul is the first person I can remember ever having complained about it, maybe nobody else is confused. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: