Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ixCHQ-0001yW-3s for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:02:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ixCHO-0006pm-Ac for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:02:54 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ixCHN-0006l8-UJ for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:02:54 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ixCHL-0007tR-Ne for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:02:52 +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 00UG2j78021016; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 11:02:45 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Fujii Masao cc: Amit Langote , Fujii Masao , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: table partitioning and access privileges In-reply-to: <3546b691-b744-12c9-fd2f-7dc31c3c030e@oss.nttdata.com> References: <6218.1577388354@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3546b691-b744-12c9-fd2f-7dc31c3c030e@oss.nttdata.com> Comments: In-reply-to Fujii Masao message dated "Thu, 23 Jan 2020 22:14:48 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <21014.1580400165.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 11:02:45 -0500 Message-ID: <21015.1580400165@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Fujii Masao 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. regards, tom lane