Re: REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re: [GENERAL] Postgres Permissions Article)

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> The argument for not back-patching a bug fix usually boils down to
> >> fear of breaking existing applications, but it's hard to see how
> >> removal of a permission check could break a working application ---
> >> especially when the permission check is as hard to trigger as this one.
> >> How many table owners ever revoke their own REFERENCES permission?
>
> > Sure, but that argument cuts both ways. If nobody ever does that, who
> > will be helped by back-patching this?
> > I certainly agree that back-patching this change is pretty low risk.
> > I just don't think it has any real benefits.
>
> I think the benefit is reduction of user confusion. Admittedly, since
> Paul is the first person I can remember ever having complained about it,
> maybe nobody else is confused.
>

​After going back-and-forth on this (and not being able to independently
come to the conclusion that what we are adhering to is actually a typo) I'm
going to toss my +1 in with Robert's. If anyone actually complains about
the behavior and not just the documentation we could consider back-patching
if any release before 10.0 is still under support.

There have been non-bug fix improvements to the docs that didn't get
back-patched covering topics more confusing than this. Expecting those
learning the system to consult the most recent version of the docs is
standard fare here. From a practical perspective the revised current docs
will be applicable for past versions as long as one doesn't go a get their
REFERENCES permission revoked somehow. If they do, and wonder why, the
docs and these list will be able to explain it reasonably well.

David J.​