Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nGlHc-0004TB-9U for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2022 17:25:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nGlHa-0007zy-TA for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2022 17:25:02 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nGlHa-0007yJ-II for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2022 17:25:02 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nGlHT-00079y-Pn for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2022 17:25:01 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 216HOoSp730521; Sun, 6 Feb 2022 12:24:50 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Joe Conway cc: Joshua Brindle , "Bossart, Nathan" , Stephen Frost , Robert Haas , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] use has_privs_for_role for predefined roles In-reply-to: References: <20211108204449.GO20998@tamriel.snowman.net> <5F9388A2-35EA-4DAA-BE05-68D55EEA6DC3@amazon.com> <0ED10807-9E7F-4BB5-9473-4668EE68AE2D@amazon.com> <4117557.1641329799@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Joe Conway message dated "Sun, 06 Feb 2022 11:38:26 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <730519.1644168290.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2022 12:24:50 -0500 Message-ID: <730520.1644168290@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Joe Conway writes: > I'd like to pick this patch up and see it through to commit/push. > Presumably that will include back-patching to all supported pg versions. > Before I go through the effort to back-patch, does anyone want to argue > that this should *not* be back-patched? Hm, I'm -0.5 or so. I think changing security-related behaviors in a stable branch is a hard sell unless you are closing a security hole. This is a fine improvement for HEAD but I'm inclined to leave the back branches alone. regards, tom lane