Robert Haas <robertmhaas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> In short, it seems like this statement in the docs is correctly describing >> our code's behavior, but said behavior is wrong and should be changed. >> I'd propose fixing it like that in HEAD; I'm not sure if the back branches >> should also be changed. > Sounds reasonable, but I don't see much advantage to changing it in > the back-branches. Well, it's a SQL-compliance bug, and we often back-patch bug fixes. 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? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
