On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
I think we also need to be extra careful about changing *security related* behavior in back branches, even more so than other behavior. In this case I think it's quite unlikely that it would hit somebody, but the risk is there. And people generally auto-upgrade to the latest minor releases, whereas they at least in theory read the top of the release notes when doing a major upgrade (ok, most people probably don't, but at least some do).
