On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 07:21:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wouldn't have a big problem with just dropping this whole test stanza.
> It's an out-and-out violation of our rule against not creating rolenames
> not starting with "regress_", and it's not testing anything that seems
> especially likely to break.
Perhaps a stupid question. What's the point behind the logic to forbid a
double-quoted "public" but to authorize a double-quoted "user"? The
whole thing looks inconsistent to me.
--
Michael
