On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 09:41:20AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Now on the other hand, I also do think we need more privilege bits.
> You're not alone in making the case that this is a problem which needs
> to be solved, and the set of other people who are also making that
> argument includes me. At the same time, there is certainly a double
> standard here. When Andrew and Tom committed
> d11e84ea466b4e3855d7bd5142fb68f51c273567 and
> a0ffa885e478f5eeacc4e250e35ce25a4740c487 respectively, we used up 2 of
> the remaining 4 bits, bits which other people would have liked to have
> used up years ago and they were told "no you can't." I don't believe I
> would have been willing to commit those patches without doing
> something to solve this problem, because I would have been worried
> about getting yelled at by Tom. But now here we are with only 2 bits
> left instead of 4, and we're telling the next patch author - who is
> not Tom - that he's on the hook to solve the problem.
>
> Well, we do need to solve the problem. But we're not necessarily being
> fair about how the work involved gets distributed. It's a heck of a
> lot easier for a committer to get something committed to address this
> issue than a non-committer, and it's a heck of a lot easier for a
> committer to ignore the fact that the problem hasn't been solved and
> press ahead anyway, and yet somehow we're trying to dump a problem
> that's a decade in the making on Nathan. I'm not exactly sure what to
> propose as an alternative, but that doesn't seem quite fair.
Are there any concerns with simply expanding AclMode to 64 bits, as done in
v5 [0]?
[0] https://postgr.es/m/20220908055035.GA2100193%40nathanxps13
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
