public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Joe Conway <[email protected]>
Cc: Bossart, Nathan <[email protected]>
Cc: Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: replacing role-level NOINHERIT with a grant-level option
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2022 17:06:18 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+Tgmob=Wsn5PexDvNEiw1MysGZL12x+vwgbw9kVR2OMNCEoAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGB+Vh4Zv_TvKt2tv3QNS6tUM_F_9icmuj0zjywwcgVi4PAhFA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGB+Vh4cCTey_TvE_O0CZu-D+6fVXC8a+C-UTzqkg8oN5YcOrQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGB+Vh7fgOfLtCG+01D8ch3icG2aEd38dvy9uavtKWrpf1_XZw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAGB+Vh5RpzZroX-RKLXYWyTidpWX6=qcbMoVWERotAWh-_CeUQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAGB+Vh4Om+DFD2KChk5bjz+F2c+AJWDdPqiKPNxf5Ld3CvwwFw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAGB+Vh4jWh-KuV6qt0FKC3M=HCZT1X=Kn5E1g68s1+0OSfoCdQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmoYeNB1PxMO-TYv4_Ky7XR3-3Le+fpL87T7QMR=OWc7U1Q@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+Tgmoax3J2D1RoqSqBRuLVifMjinZ5SPvR+rBqBT89u57zOJQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+Tgmob=Wsn5PexDvNEiw1MysGZL12x+vwgbw9kVR2OMNCEoAg@mail.gmail.com>
On 2022-06-02 Th 14:06, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 1:17 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Point 2 would cause every existing pg_dumpall script to fail, which
>> seems like kind of a large gotcha. Less unpleasant alternatives
>> could include
>>
>> * Continue to accept the syntax, but ignore it, maybe with a WARNING
>> for the alternative that doesn't correspond to the new behavior.
>>
>> * Keep pg_authid.rolinherit, and have it act as supplying the default
>> behavior for subsequent GRANTs to that role.
> Of those two alternatives, I would certainly prefer the first, because
> the second doesn't actually get rid of the ugly wart. It just adds a
> non-ugly thing that we have to maintain along with the ugly thing,
> apparently in perpetuity. If we do the first of these, we can probably
> remove the obsolete syntax at some point in the distant future, and in
> the meantime, we don't have to figure out how it's supposed to
> interact with existing features or new ones, since the actual feature
> is already removed.
>
+1
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
view thread (74+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: replacing role-level NOINHERIT with a grant-level option
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox