On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > I went over *every* superuser check in the system when I did that work, > wrote up a long email about why I made the decisions that I did, posted > it here, had follow-on discussions, all of which lead to the patch which > ended up going in.
Link to that email? I went back and looked at that thread and didn't see anything that looked like a general policy statement to me. But I may have missed it. > I am not anxious to revisit that decision and certainly not based on > an argument that, so far, boils down to "I think a monitoring system > might be able to use this function that allows it to read pg_authid > directly, so we should drop the superuser() check in it." Well, I'm not eager to revisit all the decisions you'd like to overturn either, but we'll just both have to cope. I assume we're both coming at these issues with the intention of making PostgreSQL better; the fact that we don't always agree on everything is probably inevitable. -- 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
