Robert Treat wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 06:21, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Robert Treat <r...@xzilla.net> writes: > >>> Did anything ever come of this discussion? > >> > >> I think it's a TODO --- nothing done about it as yet, AFAIR. > >> > >>> On one of the databases I > >>> was upgrading, I ran into a similar problem with roles that are set as > >>> roles. The problem seems to stem from pg_dumpall dumping roles in > >>> alphabetical order: > >> > >>> CREATE ROLE asha; > >>> ALTER ROLE asha SET role TO 'omniti'; > >>> .. sometime later ... > >>> CREATE ROLE omniti; > >> > >> That seems like a pretty bizarre thing to do. ?Why would you want such a > >> setting? > > > > I'm sure there are several. I've seen (and done) this more than once > > to ensure that the owner of newly created object is the "shared role" > > and not the individual, for example. > > > > Yeah, there are actually several of the roles that get set to the > "omniti" role, like the "robert" role, which doesn't have any issue > because it comes alphabetically after omniti. This also helps folks > get around several permission related issues (simplified management, > uniform permissions across users, simplified dependencies, etc..), but > object ownership is a key part of it.
Added to TODO: Allow pg_dumpall to output restorable ALTER USER/DATABASE SET settings * http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg00916.php * http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg00394.php * http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-02/msg02359.php -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers