On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 2:49 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >> I'm not a fan of having *only* warning in the back-branches. What I >> would think we'd do here is correct the back-branch documentation to be >> correct, and then add a warning that it changes in v11. >> >> You didn't suggest an actual change wrt the back-branch warning, but it >> seems to me like it'd end up being morally equivilant to "ok, forget >> what we just said, what really happens is X, but we fix it in v11." > > Yeah, I'm very unclear what, if anything, to do about the back-branch > documentation. Suggestions appreciated.
I think the real behaviour can be described as something like this: "Only superusers may connect to foreign servers without password authentication, so always specify the <literal>password</literal> option for user mappings that may be used by non-superusers." But which user mappings may be used by non-superusers can not be defined without explaining views owned by superusers. I don't think we should be talking about views in that part of documentation. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
