pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: table partitioning and access privileges
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 02:45:13 +0900
Message-ID: <fa6318d0-b28b-145b-dd79-926a8a12caa4@oss.nttdata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d686c99b-6567-9c6c-4f41-129a106afdb5@oss.nttdata.com>
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>
	<d686c99b-6567-9c6c-4f41-129a106afdb5@oss.nttdata.com>



On 2020/01/31 1:28, Fujii Masao wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

I'm thinking to wait at least half a day before reverting
the back-patch just in case someone can give opinion
during that period.

Regards,

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





view thread (25+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <fa6318d0-b28b-145b-dd79-926a8a12caa4@oss.nttdata.com>
Permalink:  ../fa6318d0-b28b-145b-dd79-926a8a12caa4@oss.nttdata.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/fa6318d0-b28b-145b-dd79-926a8a12caa4@oss.nttdata.com

 · 

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: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, amitlangote09@gmail.com, masao.fujii@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: table partitioning and access privileges
  In-Reply-To: <fa6318d0-b28b-145b-dd79-926a8a12caa4@oss.nttdata.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox