Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > I have looked this over a little bit and I guess I don't see why the > lack of a grand plan for how to organize all of our permissions checks > ought to keep us from removing this one on the grounds of redundancy. > We have to attack this problem in small pieces if we're going to make > any progress, and the pieces aren't going to get any smaller than > this.
I would turn that argument around: given the lack of a grand plan, why should we remove this particular check at all? Nobody has argued that there would be a significant, or even measurable, performance gain. When and if we do have a plan, we might find ourselves putting this check back. Even if you are right in your unsubstantiated hypothesis that this change will be a subset of any future change that is made with some plan in mind, I don't see that incremental revisions of the permissions check placement are a good way to approach the problem. What I fear will result from that is gaps in permissions checking, depending on what combination of revisions of core and third-party code happen to get used in a given installation. I think we need a plan first, not random patches first. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers