Re: table partitioning and access privileges
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: table partitioning and access privileges |
Дата | |
Msg-id | d686c99b-6567-9c6c-4f41-129a106afdb5@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: table partitioning and access privileges (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: table partitioning and access privileges
Re: table partitioning and access privileges |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/01/31 1:02, Tom Lane wrote: > Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> writes: >> Thanks for updating the patch! Barring any objection, >> I will commit this fix and backport it to all supported versions. > > Sorry for not having paid closer attention to this thread, but ... > is back-patching this behavioral change really a good idea? > > It's not that hard to imagine that somebody is expecting the old > behavior and will complain that we broke their application's security. > So I'd have thought it better to fix only in HEAD, with a > compatibility warning in the v13 release notes. > > I'm afraid it's much more likely that people will complain about > making such a change in a minor release than that they will be > happy about it. It's particularly risky to be making it in what > will be the last 9.4.x release, because we will not have any > opportunity to undo it in that branch if there is pushback. Fair enough. I finally did back-patch because the behavior is clearly documented and I failed to hear the opinions to object the back-patch. But I should have heard and discussed such risks more. I'm OK to revert all those back-patch. Instead, probably the document should be updated in old branches. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NTT DATA CORPORATION Advanced Platform Technology Group Research and Development Headquarters
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: