From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
cc: "Suralkar, Yogendra (Yogendra)" <suralkary@avaya.com>,
        "pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>,
        "Porob, Dattaram (Datta)" <porobd@avaya.com>,
        "Oswal,
    Prashant (Prashant) **CTR**" <poswal@avaya.com>,
        "Patil,
    Parag (Parag)" <paragp@avaya.com>,
        "Devaraj,
    Sankar (Sankar)" <devarajs@avaya.com>,
        "Singh,
    Payal (Payal) **CTR**" <payals@avaya.com>
Subject: Re: Unable to connect to PostgreSQL DB as root user when private key
 is owned by root with permission 640
In-reply-to: <ff6b518a-36bf-f400-39c6-a02a44650c4d@pgmasters.net>
References: 
 <MW3PR15MB3931DF96896DC36D21AFD47CA3D39@MW3PR15MB3931.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
 <335500.1653058186@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1719047.1653422732@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <2af73dd7-6ea2-b5f2-9b35-76e6a8f2a54a@pgmasters.net>
 <2415119.1653588981@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <ff6b518a-36bf-f400-39c6-a02a44650c4d@pgmasters.net>
Comments: In-reply-to David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
	message dated "Thu, 26 May 2022 16:01:49 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2457144.1653600913.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 17:35:13 -0400
Message-ID: <2457145.1653600913@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2457145.1653600913%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes:
> On 5/26/22 2:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> * This puts us back into a situation where the frontend and server tests
>>> are not in sync.  Do we want to relax the server's checks to match this,
>>> or just leave that side as it stands?

>> Yeah, I'm unenthused now about touching this in the back branches.
>> But do we want to do it in HEAD, or just leave well enough alone?

> After thinking on it for a bit I believe we should leave well enough 
> alone. This code is rarely touched so I don't think it's a very big deal.

Agreed.  We changed it because we thought the two chunks of code were
satisfying identical constraints, but evidently that's not so.  At least
the situation is better documented now.

			regards, tom lane