Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> I'd be more eager to do that if we had some field complaints >> about it. Since we don't, my inclination is not to, but I'm >> only -0.1 or so; anybody else want to vote?
> This patch was specifically developed in response to field complaints > about it working differently, so there's that. Hmm ... I didn't recall seeing any on the lists, but a bit of archive searching found https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20170213184323.6099.18278%40wrigleys.postgresql.org wherein we'd considered the idea and rejected it, or at least decided that we wanted finer-grained control than the server side needs. So that's *a* field complaint. But are we still worried about the concerns that were raised there? Re-reading, it looks like the submitter then wanted us to just drop the prohibition of group-readability without tying it to root ownership, which I feel would indeed be pretty dangerous given how many systems have groups like "users". But I don't think root-owned-group-readable is such a problem: if you can create such a file then you can make one owned by the calling user, too. Anyway, I'd be happier about back-patching if we could document actual requests to make it work like the server side does. regards, tom lane
