Subject: Re: table partitioning and access privileges
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
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>
 <d686c99b-6567-9c6c-4f41-129a106afdb5@oss.nttdata.com>
Message-ID: <fa6318d0-b28b-145b-dd79-926a8a12caa4@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 02:45:13 +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: <d686c99b-6567-9c6c-4f41-129a106afdb5@oss.nttdata.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


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