Excerpts from Etsuro Fujita's message of mié feb 22 05:37:36 -0300 2012: > I did some tests. The results look good to me. Please find attached a > logfile.
Thanks. > My only concern on the patch is > > +static void > +AlterForeignServerOwner_internal(Relation rel, HeapTuple tup, Oid > newOwnerId) > +{ > + Form_pg_foreign_server form; > > - srvId = HeapTupleGetOid(tup); > form = (Form_pg_foreign_server) GETSTRUCT(tup); > > if (form->srvowner != newOwnerId) > @@ -366,10 +388,15 @@ AlterForeignServerOwner(const char *name, Oid > newOwnerId) > /* Superusers can always do it */ > if (!superuser()) > { > > I wonder if superusers can always do it. For example, is it OK for > superusers to change the ownership of a foreign server owned by old_role > to new_role that doesn't have USAGE privilege on its foreign data wrapper. Well, permission checking are just what they were before the patch. I did not change them here. I didn't participate in the discussions that led to the current behavior, but as far as I know the guiding principle here is that superusers always can do whatever they please. Maybe what you point out is a bug in the behavior (both before and after my patch), but if so, please raise it separately. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers