Hello > Inspired by this message [1]
My interpretation of that message was not to go in this direction: > (And no, I'd not look favorably on a response that proposes to fix > that by adding the ability to copy ownership/permissions. There > are probably security problems in such an idea.) And I do see some issues in that regard with this patch: > This functionality only works if the current user is also the owner of > the source table. With these changes, `INCLUDING ALL` requires ownership. I don't think that's an acceptable breaking change? I also don't see a good way to deal with that: * either INCLUDING ALL doesn't include this - which would be confusing * or it doesn't include this for non owned tables - even more confusing * or it ignores ownership, which would be insecure do you have a better suggestion? There's also a privilege escalation issue in the current patch: if any of the privileges have GRANT option, all of them will have in the new table.
