Re: Allow pg_dumpall to work without pg_authid

On 26 February 2017 at 19:26, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
​​

> I am a little surprised that this patch has gotten such a good
> reception.  We haven't in the past been all that willing to accept
> core changes for the benefit of forks of PostgreSQL; extensions, sure,
> but forks?  Maybe we should take the view that Amazon has broken this
> and Amazon ought to fix it, rather than making it our job to (try to)
> work around their bugs.
>
>
(Disclaimer: I work at the said company, although don't represent them
in any way. This patch is in my personal capacity)

To confirm, this did originate by trying to accommodate a fork. But what
I can say is that this doesn't appear to be a bug; what they call
Super-User isn't effectively one.

Personally, I think it would be wise to also consider that this fork has
a very large user-base and for that user-base, this 'is' Postgres. Further,
case-by-case exceptions still should be considered for important issues
(here, this relates to lock-in).

Either way, I could pull-back the patch if more people object.​
​-
robins​