Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> Just to be clear, I'm not really against this patch as-is, but it
> shouldn't be a precedent or limit us from supporting more permissive
> permissions in other areas (or even here) if there are sensible
> use-cases for more permissive permissions.
OK, and to be clear, I'm not against considering other use-cases and
trying to do something appropriate for them. I just reject the idea
that it's unnecessary or inappropriate for us to be concerned about
whether secret-holding files are secure.
regards, tom lane
