* Michael Banck (mbanck@gmx.net) wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 07:03:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I think Andres' point about "trust" being an essential disaster recovery
> > mode is something to consider, as well. That puts pretty strict limits
> > on what would be a credible replacement.
>
> Then let's rename it from `trust' to `disaster'... ;)
While certainly an amusing idea, I'm afraid that it's simply not worth
the complaints we'd get, as we wouldn't have materially improved
things. :/ Not only that, but they might mistakenly believe that it's
then only available when doing recovery or something along those lines.
Thanks!
Stephen