Re: Remaining 9.5 open items

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Remaining 9.5 open items
Date: 2015-11-30 21:55:20
Message-ID: 20151130215520.GJ3685@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Well, it's December nearly, and we don't seem to be making much progress
> towards pushing out 9.5.0. I see the following items on
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.5_Open_Items
>
> * Open Row-Level Security Issues
>
> Seems like what's left here is only documentation fixes, but they still
> need to get done.

These are mainly just documentation improvements which I'm working on,
though the docs were recently updated and I need to incorporate Peter's
changes which I wasn't exactly anticipating.

The non-documentation question is around DROP OWNED. We need to either
have policies dropped by DROP OWNED (well, roles removed, unless it's
the last one, in which case the policy should be dropped), or update the
documentation to reflect that they don't. I had been thinking we'd
fix DROP OWNED to deal with the policies, but if folks feel it's too
late for that kind of a change, then we can simply document it. I don't
believe that's unreasonable for a new feature and we can work to get it
addressed in 9.6.

I'm starting to think that just documenting it makes sense for 9.5. I
doubt it's going to be a serious issue during 9.5's lifetime.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-11-30 22:08:06 Re: Remaining 9.5 open items
Previous Message Julien Rouhaud 2015-11-30 21:41:16 gincostestimate and hypothetical indexes