Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >> Fair point, but doesn't it apply equally to non-default ACLs on any > >> other system objects? If you tweaked the permissions on say pg_ls_dir(), > >> then dump, then tweak them some more, you're going to get uncertain > >> results if you load that dump back into this database ... with or without > >> --clean, because we certainly aren't going to drop pinned objects. > > > Yes, that's certainly true, the public schema is the only "special" > > animal in this regard and making it less special (and more like > > pg_ls_dir()) would definitely be nice. > > I wonder if it'd be worth the trouble to invent a variant of REVOKE > that means "restore this object's permissions to default" --- that is, > either the ACL recorded in pg_init_privs if there is one, or NULL if > there's no pg_init_privs entry. Then you could imagine pg_dump emitting > that command before trying to assign an ACL to any object it hadn't > created earlier in the run, rather than guessing about the current state > of the object's ACL. (I'm not volunteering.)
I actually like that idea quite a bit.. Not really high on my priority list though. > >> I think we could jigger things so that we dump the definition of these > >> special quasi-system objects only if their ACLs are not default, but > >> it's not clear to me that that's really an improvement in the long run. > >> Seems like it's just making them even wartier. > > > Yeah, that would be worse, I agree. > > So are we at a consensus yet? You had me at "make public less special", I was just trying to make sure we all understand what that means. +1 from me for moving forward. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature