Re: role self-revocation

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: role self-revocation
Date: 2022-03-11 15:36:44
Message-ID: CAKFQuwafNsKm=S5d9YEeChNdW7eRPLXzfoQRudk0DRJ2Z5A-_A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 8:32 AM Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:

>
> Such scripts as will break will still
> break in a pretty clear way with a clear answer as to how to fix them
> and I don't think there's some kind of data corruption or something that
> would happen.
>
>
I largely agree and am perfectly fine with going with the majority on this
point. My vote would just fall on the conservative side. But as so far no
one else seems to be overly concerned, nerfing CREATEROLE seems to be the
path forward.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2022-03-11 15:41:17 Re: role self-revocation
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2022-03-11 15:32:07 Re: role self-revocation