On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> Essentially the argument for allowing this without a permissions check >> is "I'm not really doing anything to the schema, just preconfiguring the >> rights that will be attached to a new object if I later (successfully) >> create one in this schema". > > Makes sense to me; if we were going to do something, I'd say a warning > would be better, but I'm alright with nothing too.
I vote for nothing. I always thought that check was wrong-headed. >> Thoughts? If we change this, should we back-patch it? I'm inclined to >> think it's a bug (especially if the restore-ordering hazard is real) >> so we should back-patch. > > Agreed. Seems reasonable. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
