On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 08:35:25AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 08:24:36PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > >> Agreed. I'll take care of both and we'll make sure the new role > > >> attributes being added will do the same for upgrades also. > > > > > That would make pg_dumpall less faithful for every role other than the > > > bootstrap superuser, a net loss. It would be defensible to do this for > > > BOOTSTRAP_SUPERUSERID only. > > > > Huh? It seems difficult to argue that it's "less faithful" to do this > > when the previous version didn't have the concept at all. > > I believe what Noah is pointing out is that we'll end up adding > attributes which weren't there already for superusers created by users.
Yes. > There's a couple ways to address this- > > Stop enabling all the role attribute bits for the bootstrap superuser, > in which case it'd look a lot more like other superusers that a user > might create (at least, in my experience, no one bothers to set the role > attributes beyond superuser in real environments). > > or [...] > Personally, I'm leaning towards the first as it's less clutter in the > output of psql. I'd agree for a new design, but I see too little to gain from changing it now. Today's behavior is fine. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
