Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I did miss the need to fix the docs, and am happy to put in some strong
>> wording about the security hazards of these functions while fixing the
>> docs. But I do not think that leaving them with hardwired superuser
>> checks is an improvement over being able to control them with GRANT.
> Sorry about that. lobj.sgml indeed mentions superusers. Do you need a patch?
No, I can write it. But I'm going to wait to see where this debate
settles before expending effort on the docs.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
