* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 08:39:28PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > I don't see the point in including them for --clean..? --clean states > > that DROP commands would be added, not that existing roles would be > > adjusted in some way. > > It does state that, but note this comment in dumpRoles(): > > /* > * We dump CREATE ROLE followed by ALTER ROLE to ensure that > the role > * will acquire the right properties even if it already exists > (ie, it > * won't hurt for the CREATE to fail). This is particularly > important > * for the role we are connected as, since even with --clean we > will > * have failed to drop it. binary_upgrade cannot generate any > errors, > * so we assume the current role is already created. > */
Ah, yes, of course.
> Under --clean, "the right properties" are those the role would have had if the
> DROP ROLE had succeeded. Those are necessarily independent of the pre-DROP
> version of the role. (Otherwise, you potentially get different outcomes
> depending on which superuser restored the --clean dump.)
Agreed, and in this case we'd need to set any attributes not set back to
the default, which would include having NOBYPASSRLS.
> > As for using 'always false'- I tend to think Robert actually has it
> > better by using the default for users. Consider rolinherit- that
> > defaults to 'true' and while it would technically be more 'safe' to set
> > it to false, it wouldn't have matched what we provided under the user /
> > group system prior to roles. Doing this would also reduce clutter in
> > pg_dumpall output.
>
> My arguments and conclusion apply only to the permission-like attributes that
> are subsets of SUPERUSER. rolinherit is indeed not in that category.
Understood.
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
