On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Even if blocking DROPs is not perfect for all cases,
> unconditionally allowing to DROP a role still doesn't seem proper
> behavior, especially for replication roles. And session logins
> seem to me to have enough reason to be treated differently than
> disguising as another role using SET ROLE or sec-definer.
> The attached patch blocks DROP ROLE for roles that own active
> sessions, and on the other hand prevents a session from being
> activated if the login role is concurrently dropped.
> Oskari's LEFT-Join patch is still desirable.
> Is this still pointless?

I am not really in favor of half-fixing this.  If we can't
conveniently wait until a dropped role is completely out of the
system, then I don't see a lot of point in trying to do it in the
limited cases where we can.  If LEFT JOIN is the way to go, then,
blech, but, so be it.

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:

Reply via email to