Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y50kQ-0004jn-3S for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 23:26:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y50kP-00076B-F7 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 23:26:13 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y50kN-00075y-Rc for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 23:26:11 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y50kK-0003Rv-68 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 23:26:10 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sBRNQ2Ef001953; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 18:26:02 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Stephen Frost cc: Noah Misch , Adam Brightwell , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: CATUPDATE confusion? In-reply-to: <20141227231829.GX3062@tamriel.snowman.net> References: <20141227080926.GA2035611@tornado.leadboat.com> <20141227151034.GU3062@tamriel.snowman.net> <28382.1419703324@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20141227231829.GX3062@tamriel.snowman.net> Comments: In-reply-to Stephen Frost message dated "Sat, 27 Dec 2014 18:18:29 -0500" Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 18:26:02 -0500 Message-ID: <1952.1419722762@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Stephen Frost writes: > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> Plan C (remove CATUPDATE altogether) also has some merit. But adding a >> superuser override there would be entirely pointless. > This is be my recommendation. I do not see the point of carrying the > option around just to confuse new users of pg_authid and reviewers of > the code. Yeah ... if no one's found it interesting in the 20 years since the code left Berkeley, it's unlikely that interest will emerge in the future. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers