On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> > > Well, we can remove them from PG10 and pgAdmin3 (and others) be
> adjusted
> > > to use the new ones, conditionally on serv
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I really do not think the PG core project should be held hostage by an
> external and apparently not-really-maintained project. What if we
> introduce some other difference in PG10 that breaks pgAdmin3? Are we
> going to roll that change ba
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > Note that these views have not been consistently maintained and have
>> > ended up including some role attributes from recent versions
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Well, we can remove them from PG10 and pgAdmin3 (and others) be adjusted
> > to use the new ones, conditionally on server version. Surely pgAdmin3
> > is going to receive further u
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Note that these views have not been consistently maintained and have
> > ended up including some role attributes from recent versions
>
> That's not a bug. According to the documentation, thes
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> My big objection to removing these views is that it will break pgAdmin
>> 3, which uses all three of these views. I understand that the pgAdmin
>> community is now moving away from pgAdmin 3 and toward pgAdmin 4, but
>
Robert Haas wrote:
> My big objection to removing these views is that it will break pgAdmin
> 3, which uses all three of these views. I understand that the pgAdmin
> community is now moving away from pgAdmin 3 and toward pgAdmin 4, but
> I bet that pgAdmin 3 still has significant usage and will c
On 02/13/2017 11:00 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> My big objection to removing these views is that it will break pgAdmin
> 3, which uses all three of these views. I understand that the pgAdmin
> community is now moving away from pgAdmin 3 and toward pgAdmin 4, but
> I bet that pgAdmin 3 still has signi
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Note that these views have not been consistently maintained and have
> ended up including some role attributes from recent versions
That's not a bug. According to the documentation, these views exist
for compatibility with PostgreSQL version
On 2/10/17 12:04 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
They're misleading by having an arbitrary subset of the role attributes
and implying that the role relationships are simpler than they actually
are. Frankly, they're also not being consistently maintained based on
any proper policy, which I find quite ob
Tom,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > The question of removing the pre-role, deprecated, views of pg_user,
> > pg_group and pg_shadow has come up again.
>
> > I figured a new thread was in order, however, to allow others to weigh
> > in on it.
>
> > Note that t
Stephen Frost writes:
> The question of removing the pre-role, deprecated, views of pg_user,
> pg_group and pg_shadow has come up again.
> I figured a new thread was in order, however, to allow others to weigh
> in on it.
> Note that these views have not been consistently maintained and have
> e
Greetings,
The question of removing the pre-role, deprecated, views of pg_user,
pg_group and pg_shadow has come up again.
I figured a new thread was in order, however, to allow others to weigh
in on it.
Note that these views have not been consistently maintained and have
ended up including some
13 matches
Mail list logo
