On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Even if blocking DROPs is not perfect for all cases, > unconditionally allowing to DROP a role still doesn't seem proper > behavior, especially for replication roles. And session logins > seem to me to have enough reason to be treated differently than > disguising as another role using SET ROLE or sec-definer. > > The attached patch blocks DROP ROLE for roles that own active > sessions, and on the other hand prevents a session from being > activated if the login role is concurrently dropped. > > Oskari's LEFT-Join patch is still desirable. > > Is this still pointless?
I am not really in favor of half-fixing this. If we can't conveniently wait until a dropped role is completely out of the system, then I don't see a lot of point in trying to do it in the limited cases where we can. If LEFT JOIN is the way to go, then, blech, but, so be it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
