Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> The argument for not back-patching a bug fix usually boils down to >> fear of breaking existing applications, but it's hard to see how >> removal of a permission check could break a working application --- >> especially when the permission check is as hard to trigger as this one. >> How many table owners ever revoke their own REFERENCES permission?
> Sure, but that argument cuts both ways. If nobody ever does that, who > will be helped by back-patching this? > I certainly agree that back-patching this change is pretty low risk. > I just don't think it has any real benefits. I think the benefit is reduction of user confusion. Admittedly, since Paul is the first person I can remember ever having complained about it, maybe nobody else is confused. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers