From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Removal of deprecated views pg_user, pg_group, pg_shadow |
Date: | 2017-02-10 05:51:54 |
Message-ID: | 17985.1486705914@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2017-02-10 05:54:08 | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-02-10 05:49:09 | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |