On 5/17/23 1:30 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Tom,
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 3:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Tom/Nathan, do you have any further suggestions here?
>>
>> My recommendation is to revert this feature. I do not see any
>> way that we won't regret it as a poor design.
>
> I have carefully noted your concerns regarding the USER SET patch that
> I've committed. It's clear that you have strong convictions about
> this, particularly in relation to your plan of storing the setter role
> OID in pg_db_role_setting.
>
> I want to take a moment to acknowledge the significance of your
> perspective and I respect that you have a different view on this
> matter. Although I have not yet had the opportunity to see the
> feasibility of your approach, I am open to understanding it further.
>
> Anyway, I don't want to do anything counter-productive. So, I've
> taken the decision to revert the USER SET patch for the time being.
Thanks Alexander. I know reverting a feature is not easy and appreciate
you taking the time to work through this discussion.
> I'm looking forward to continuing working with you on this subject for v17.
+1; I think everyone agrees there is a feature here that will be helpful
to our users.
Thanks,
Jonathan
