| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks |
| Date: | 2017-12-04 17:49:08 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY=36p8MBdNOX_PUawSuUOsDAM1-PL6VRPQexpO_xQTRA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> I'm not a fan of having *only* warning in the back-branches. What I
> would think we'd do here is correct the back-branch documentation to be
> correct, and then add a warning that it changes in v11.
>
> You didn't suggest an actual change wrt the back-branch warning, but it
> seems to me like it'd end up being morally equivilant to "ok, forget
> what we just said, what really happens is X, but we fix it in v11."
Yeah, I'm very unclear what, if anything, to do about the back-branch
documentation. Suggestions appreciated.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-12-04 18:58:07 | Silly API for do_pg_start_backup() |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-04 17:47:40 | Re: explain analyze output with parallel workers - question about meaning of information for explain.depesz.com |