Greetings, * Nathan Bossart (nathandboss...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Sat, Oct 08, 2022 at 11:46:50AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > Now there may be some other scenario in which the patch is going in > > exactly the right direction, and if I knew what it was, maybe I'd > > agree that the patch was a great idea. But I haven't seen anything > > like that on the thread. Basically, the argument is just that the > > change would make things more consistent. However, it might be an > > abuse of the term. If you go out and buy blue curtains because you > > have a blue couch, that's consistent interior decor. If you go out and > > buy a blue car because you have a blue couch, that's not really > > consistent anything, it's just two fairly-unrelated things that are > > both blue. > > I believe I started this thread after reviewing the remaining uses of > is_member_of_role() after 6198420 was committed and wondering whether this > case was an oversight. If upon closer inspection we think that mere > membership is appropriate for pg_hba.conf, I'm fully prepared to go and > mark this commitfest entry as Rejected. It obviously does not seem as > clear-cut as 6198420. And I'll admit I don't have a concrete use-case in > hand to justify the behavior change.
Looks like we've already ended up there, but my recollection of this is that it was very much intentional to use is_member_of_role() here. Perhaps it should have been better commented (as all uses of is_member_of_role() instead of has_privs_of_role() really should have lots of comments as to exactly why it makes sense in those cases). Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
