Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> I'd be more eager to do that if we had some field complaints
>> about it. Since we don't, my inclination is not to, but I'm
>> only -0.1 or so; anybody else want to vote?
> This patch was specifically developed in response to field complaints
> about it working differently, so there's that.
Hmm ... I didn't recall seeing any on the lists, but a bit of archive
searching found
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20170213184323.6099.18278%40wrigleys.postgresql.org
wherein we'd considered the idea and rejected it, or at least decided
that we wanted finer-grained control than the server side needs.
So that's *a* field complaint. But are we still worried about the
concerns that were raised there?
Re-reading, it looks like the submitter then wanted us to just drop the
prohibition of group-readability without tying it to root ownership,
which I feel would indeed be pretty dangerous given how many systems have
groups like "users". But I don't think root-owned-group-readable is such
a problem: if you can create such a file then you can make one owned by
the calling user, too.
Anyway, I'd be happier about back-patching if we could document
actual requests to make it work like the server side does.
regards, tom lane
