Re: pg_parameter_aclcheck() and trusted extensions

On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 03:43:03PM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> > On 7/7/22 15:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The aspect that is a bit more debatable is whether to trouble with
> >> a set_config_option() wrapper to avoid the API break in v15.
> >> I think we'd still be making people deal with an API break in v16,
> >> so making them do it this year rather than next doesn't seem like
> >> a big deal ... but maybe someone wants to argue it's too late
> >> for API breaks in v15?
> >
> > Well there are other API breaks that affect me in v15, and to be honest
I
> > have done little except keep an eye out for the ones likely to affect
> > extensions I maintain so far, so may as well inflict the pain now as
later
> > ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>
> With my RMT and hacker hat on, I see no reason to not break ABI or
> APIs while we are still in beta, as long as the GA result is as best
> as we can make it. I have not looked at the reasoning behind the
> issue, but if you think that this feature will work better in the long
> term by having an extra field to track the role OID in one of the GUC
> structs or in one of its API arguments, that's fine by me.
>
> If this requires more work, a revert can of course be discussed, but I
> am not getting that this is really necessary here. This would be the
> last option to consider.

The RMT has discussed this item further, and we agree an ABI break is
acceptable for resolving this issue.

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com