Re: [HACKERS] Allow pg_dumpall to work without pg_authid
| От | Robins Tharakan |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Allow pg_dumpall to work without pg_authid |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAEP4nAw53BzS0KEVeJUDsb9AC8HVdzcfYtGzwS0r9xseJ1=Liw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Allow pg_dumpall to work without pg_authid (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Allow pg_dumpall to work without pg_authid
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 26 February 2017 at 19:26, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
I am a little surprised that this patch has gotten such a good
reception. We haven't in the past been all that willing to accept
core changes for the benefit of forks of PostgreSQL; extensions, sure,
but forks? Maybe we should take the view that Amazon has broken this
and Amazon ought to fix it, rather than making it our job to (try to)
work around their bugs.
(Disclaimer: I work at the said company, although don't represent them
in any way. This patch is in my personal capacity)
To confirm, this did originate by trying to accommodate a fork. But what
I can say is that this doesn't appear to be a bug; what they call
Super-User isn't effectively one.
Personally, I think it would be wise to also consider that this fork has
a very large user-base and for that user-base, this 'is' Postgres. Further,
case-by-case exceptions still should be considered for important issues
(here, this relates to lock-in).
Either way, I could pull-back the patch if more people object.
-
robins
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: