Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY=36p8MBdNOX_PUawSuUOsDAM1-PL6VRPQexpO_xQTRA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> I'm not a fan of having *only* warning in the back-branches.  What I
> would think we'd do here is correct the back-branch documentation to be
> correct, and then add a warning that it changes in v11.
>
> You didn't suggest an actual change wrt the back-branch warning, but it
> seems to me like it'd end up being morally equivilant to "ok, forget
> what we just said, what really happens is X, but we fix it in v11."

Yeah, I'm very unclear what, if anything, to do about the back-branch
documentation.  Suggestions appreciated.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: explain analyze output with parallel workers - question aboutmeaning of information for explain.depesz.com
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Silly API for do_pg_start_backup()