"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The argument for not back-patching a bug fix usually boils down to
> >> fear of breaking existing
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The argument for not back-patching a bug fix usually boils down to
> >> fear of breaking existing
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane 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
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> In short, it seems like this statement in the docs is correctly describing
>>> our code's behavior, but
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In short, it seems like this statement in the docs is correctly describing
>> our code's behavior, but said behavior is wrong and should be changed.
>> I'd propose fixing it like
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In short, it seems like this statement in the docs is correctly describing
> our code's behavior, but said behavior is wrong and should be changed.
> I'd propose fixing it like that in HEAD; I'm not sure if the back branches
>
Paul Jungwirth writes:
>> Also I don't understand why you wrote “You need the permission on both
>> tables”: Only the owner of a table can add constraints to it
> Ah, this piece was really helpful for me in making it click. Thanks so
> much! I added a couple new