Re: use has_privs_of_role() for pg_hba.conf

On Sat, Oct 08, 2022 at 11:46:50AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Now there may be some other scenario in which the patch is going in
> exactly the right direction, and if I knew what it was, maybe I'd
> agree that the patch was a great idea. But I haven't seen anything
> like that on the thread. Basically, the argument is just that the
> change would make things more consistent. However, it might be an
> abuse of the term. If you go out and buy blue curtains because you
> have a blue couch, that's consistent interior decor. If you go out and
> buy a blue car because you have a blue couch, that's not really
> consistent anything, it's just two fairly-unrelated things that are
> both blue.

I believe I started this thread after reviewing the remaining uses of
is_member_of_role() after 6198420 was committed and wondering whether this
case was an oversight. If upon closer inspection we think that mere
membership is appropriate for pg_hba.conf, I'm fully prepared to go and
mark this commitfest entry as Rejected. It obviously does not seem as
clear-cut as 6198420. And I'll admit I don't have a concrete use-case in
hand to justify the behavior change.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com