On 30 January 2017 at 16:43, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> Agreed. Let me reiterate: all I want in this release is
>> super-ownership.
> While I'm not entirely convinced whether super-ownership is a good idea
> or not, I am pretty sure that rushing to get it into v10 is a bad idea.
> This is a rather fundamental change in our permissions model and it
> might turn out to have undesirable consequences.

Agreed. My view is that the current mechanism almost forces people to
use superusers for many things and that is definitely undesirable.

> Or even more directly: any patch for this would necessarily be landing
> in the last v10 commitfest.  We have a project policy against major
> changes showing up for the first time in the last fest of a cycle,
> for good reasons.

I understand.

> Let's take our time and get it right.

So we are able to see what is proposed, I attach a patch.

Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment: db_owner_has_obj_privs.v1.patch
Description: Binary data

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to