On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> The argument for not back-patching a bug fix usually boils down to > >> fear of breaking existing applications, but it's hard to see how > >> removal of a permission check could break a working application --- > >> especially when the permission check is as hard to trigger as this one. > >> How many table owners ever revoke their own REFERENCES permission? > > > Sure, but that argument cuts both ways. If nobody ever does that, who > > will be helped by back-patching this? > > I certainly agree that back-patching this change is pretty low risk. > > I just don't think it has any real benefits. > > I think the benefit is reduction of user confusion. Admittedly, since > Paul is the first person I can remember ever having complained about it, > maybe nobody else is confused. > After going back-and-forth on this (and not being able to independently come to the conclusion that what we are adhering to is actually a typo) I'm going to toss my +1 in with Robert's. If anyone actually complains about the behavior and not just the documentation we could consider back-patching if any release before 10.0 is still under support. There have been non-bug fix improvements to the docs that didn't get back-patched covering topics more confusing than this. Expecting those learning the system to consult the most recent version of the docs is standard fare here. From a practical perspective the revised current docs will be applicable for past versions as long as one doesn't go a get their REFERENCES permission revoked somehow. If they do, and wonder why, the docs and these list will be able to explain it reasonably well. David J.
