Hi Tom, Is there anything that could be back-patched with reasonable effort ?
-- Hannu On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 6:37 PM Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote: > > > On 17 Jun 2024, at 16:56, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> writes: > > >> I wonder if this will break any tools/scripts in prod which relies on the > >> previous (faulty) behaviour. It will be interesting to see if anything > >> shows > >> up on -bugs. Off the cuff it seems like a good idea judging by where we > >> are > >> and what we can fix with it. > > > > Considering that SHARED_DEPENDENCY_INITACL has existed for less than > > two months, it's hard to believe that any outside code has grown any > > dependencies on it, much less that it couldn't be adjusted readily. > > Doh, I was thinking about it backwards, clearly not a worry =) > > >> I wonder if it's worth reverting passing the owner ID for v17 and > >> revisiting > >> that in 18 if we work on recording the ID. Shaving a few catalog lookups > >> is > >> generally worthwhile, doing them without needing the result for the next > >> five > >> years might bite us. > > > > Yeah, that was the direction I was leaning in, too. I'll commit the > > revert of that separately, so that un-reverting it shouldn't be too > > painful if we eventually decide to do so. > > Sounds good. > > -- > Daniel Gustafsson >
