> On 17 Jun 2024, at 16:56, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
>> I wonder if this will break any tools/scripts in prod which relies on the
>> previous (faulty) behaviour. It will be interesting to see if anything shows
>> up on -bugs. Off the cuff it seems like a good idea judging by where we are
>> and what we can fix with it.
>
> Considering that SHARED_DEPENDENCY_INITACL has existed for less than
> two months, it's hard to believe that any outside code has grown any
> dependencies on it, much less that it couldn't be adjusted readily.
Doh, I was thinking about it backwards, clearly not a worry =)
>> I wonder if it's worth reverting passing the owner ID for v17 and revisiting
>> that in 18 if we work on recording the ID. Shaving a few catalog lookups is
>> generally worthwhile, doing them without needing the result for the next five
>> years might bite us.
>
> Yeah, that was the direction I was leaning in, too. I'll commit the
> revert of that separately, so that un-reverting it shouldn't be too
> painful if we eventually decide to do so.
Sounds good.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
