Subject: Re: table partitioning and access privileges
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>,
 Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: 
 <CAHGQGwFHdSvifhJE+-GSNqUHSfbiKxaeQQ7HGcYz6SC2n_oDcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6218.1577388354@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+HiwqGCQLKizA+Voyw3GjRv0q8t9adS2YFGmw6GzAbRb+yazg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwE+GauyG7POtRfRwwthAGwTjPQYdFHR97+LzA4RHGnJxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+HiwqF55uZK6znXq7=qP-LS5HQkcjGEvCHxGUjYhJGq=z9nDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3546b691-b744-12c9-fd2f-7dc31c3c030e@oss.nttdata.com>
 <21015.1580400165@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Message-ID: <d686c99b-6567-9c6c-4f41-129a106afdb5@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 01:28:38 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <21015.1580400165@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2020/01/31 1:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> 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.

Fair enough. I finally did back-patch because the behavior is clearly
documented and I failed to hear the opinions to object the back-patch.
But I should have heard and discussed such risks more.

I'm OK to revert all those back-patch. Instead, probably the document
should be updated in old branches.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Advanced Platform Technology Group
Research and Development Headquarters