Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am also wondering about the open issue of supporting comments to
>> SQL/MED objects. I thought that was pretty straightforward, but given
>> that it took me three commits to get servers and foreign data wrappers
>> squared away and then it turned out that we're still missing support
>> for user mappings, I've been vividly reminded of the danger of
>> seemingly harmless commits. Now I'm thinking that I should have just
>> replied to the initial report with "good point, but it's not a new
>> regression, so we'll fix it in 9.2". But given that part of the work
>> has already been done, I'm not sure whether I should (a) finish it, so
>> we don't have to revisit this in 9.2, (b) leave it well enough alone,
>> and we'll finish it in 9.2, or (c) back out what's already been done
>> and plan to fix the whole thing in 9.2.
> On further review, I think (a) is not even an option worth discussing.
> The permissions-checking logic for user mappings is quite different
> from what we do in the general case, and it seems likely to me that
> cleaning this up is going to require far more time and thought than we
> ought to be putting into what is really a relatively minor wart. In
> retrospect, it seems clear that this wasn't worth messing with in the
> first place at this late date in the release cycle.
I agree that we should leave user mappings alone at the moment. I don't
see a need to back out the work that's been done for the other object
types, unless you think there may be flaws in that.
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
