On 2017-02-09 20:02:54 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > On 2017-02-09 19:19:21 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > I'd love to nuke pg_shadow and all the other > > > not-really-maintained backwards-compat things from when roles were > > > added too. > > > > Not sure if it's worth the work to rip out and such, but I'm mildly > > supportive of this one too. Depends a bit on what all the other things > > are ;) > > Reviewing 7762619e95272974f90a38d8d85aafbe0e94add5 where roles were > added, I find: > > pg_user - use pg_roles instead, which actually includes all of the role > attributes, unlike pg_user
Hm, I presume this is the most used one. > pg_group - use pg_auth_members instead, which includes the info about > the admin option and the grantor then this. > pg_shadow - use pg_authid instead, which, again, actually includes all > of the role attributes, unlike pg_shadow. That's probably fine. I'm fine with dropping now, alternatively we could, and that seems like it'd institute a good practice, name them to be removed in 10+1 in the 10 release notes. "Upcoming removal of deprecated features" or such. And schedule stuff for that regularly. Like e.g. dropping psql support for < 9.0 (randomly chosen version), pg_dump support for very old versions, etc, ... While not everyone will be saved by that (by virtue of not reading / reacting) it helps those that actually read the notes. Obviously there'd still some incompatibilities that do not go through that mechanism. > I don't think we should remove things like CREATE USER, that's a > perfectly reasonable and maintained interface, unlike the above views, > which missed out on things like the 'createrole' role attribute. Yea, that'd be a bad plan. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
