| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CATUPDATE confusion? |
| Date: | 2015-03-07 14:11:20 |
| Message-ID: | 54FB0708.7070200@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/7/15 12:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> On 12/29/14 7:16 PM, Adam Brightwell wrote:
>>> Given this discussion, I have attached a patch that removes CATUPDATE
>>> for review/discussion.
>
>> committed this version
>
> Hmm .. I'm not sure that summarily removing usecatupd from those three
> system views was well thought out. pg_shadow, especially, has no reason
> to live at all except for backwards compatibility, and clients might well
> expect that column to still be there. I wonder if we'd not be better off
> to keep the column in the views but have it read from rolsuper.
I doubt anyone is reading the column. And if they are, they should stop.
pg_shadow and pg_user have been kept around because it is plausible that
a lot of tools want to have a list of users, and requiring all of them
to change to pg_authid at once was deemed too onerous at the time. I
don't think this requires us to keep all the details the same forever.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-03-07 14:24:41 | Re: CATUPDATE confusion? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-03-07 12:34:42 | Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump |