On 26 February 2017 at 19:26, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am a little surprised that this patch has gotten such a good > reception. We haven't in the past been all that willing to accept > core changes for the benefit of forks of PostgreSQL; extensions, sure, > but forks? Maybe we should take the view that Amazon has broken this > and Amazon ought to fix it, rather than making it our job to (try to) > work around their bugs. > > (Disclaimer: I work at the said company, although don't represent them in any way. This patch is in my personal capacity) To confirm, this did originate by trying to accommodate a fork. But what I can say is that this doesn't appear to be a bug; what they call Super-User isn't effectively one. Personally, I think it would be wise to also consider that this fork has a very large user-base and for that user-base, this 'is' Postgres. Further, case-by-case exceptions still should be considered for important issues (here, this relates to lock-in). Either way, I could pull-back the patch if more people object. - robins
