| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Superowners |
| Date: | 2017-01-30 15:43:29 |
| Message-ID: | 4311.1485791009@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Agreed. Let me reiterate: all I want in this release is
> super-ownership.
While I'm not entirely convinced whether super-ownership is a good idea
or not, I am pretty sure that rushing to get it into v10 is a bad idea.
This is a rather fundamental change in our permissions model and it
might turn out to have undesirable consequences.
Or even more directly: any patch for this would necessarily be landing
in the last v10 commitfest. We have a project policy against major
changes showing up for the first time in the last fest of a cycle,
for good reasons.
Let's take our time and get it right.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-30 15:49:17 | Re: One-shot expanded output in psql using \G |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-30 15:35:33 | Re: One-shot expanded output in psql using \G |