Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > The question of removing the pre-role, deprecated, views of pg_user, > pg_group and pg_shadow has come up again.
> I figured a new thread was in order, however, to allow others to weigh > in on it. > Note that these views have not been consistently maintained and have > ended up including some role attributes from recent versions (eg: > bypassrls) but were missed when others were added (eg: createrole). > There are properly maintained and cared for role-based versions of all > of these views, which are pg_roles, pg_auth_members, and pg_authid, > respectively. Umm ... what exactly is the argument that those views are really better, and are not just destined to become legacy views in their turn? > As we move forward with the other many changes in PG10, it seems like a > good time to remove these inconsistent and ancient views that were > introduced when roles were added in 2005. This sounds like "v10 is a great time to break stuff", which we've already agreed is not project policy. If there's a positive reason why these old views are impeding progress, then let's remove 'em, but I don't think you've presented one. What exactly will it hurt to leave them there? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers