Yeah, that's still on my should-fix-for-7.5 list (and I think Fabien was
going to, or already did, submit some ACL-hacking code to help). That
is, ALTER OWNER should adjust the ACL so that grants made by/to the
former owner now appear to be by/to the new owner.
However, there's still the problem t
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... The acl is still there from when brett used to own that table?
> Do you still plan to fix that?
Yeah, that's still on my should-fix-for-7.5 list (and I think Fabien was
going to, or already did, submit some ACL-hacking code to help). That
* Drop commands for TYPEs have 'CASCADE' on the end (has that always
been true)
Yeek. That's got to be a hangover from pre-dependency-chasing days.
Let's lose it in our current output, at least.
I think it's necessary due to the circular dependency between types and
their I/O functions.
Chris
-
I don't buy it. There's a tradeoff here between certainty of doing what
you want and having a script that is easy to edit. DROP is a dangerous
weapon and we should be circumspect about applying it, but ALTER OWNER
etc are much less so.
Also, the point about qualifying the DROP is that you do not
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We currently fully qualify DROP command with the namespace so that drops
> will not accidentally modify the system catalogs. Shouldn't this also
> be necessary on ALL non-CREATE commands?
> Otherwise, if the create table command associated wi
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, this brings up another point - people occasionally complain on
> the list that pg_dump is not considered important enough :( ie. Is
> there any good reason we cannot backport the entire new pg_dump to the
> 7.4 branch, and change t
* Do we no longer worry about the SCHEMA AUTHORIZATION clause? I might
set it to keep being issued in 'sql standard mode', but otherwise we
cannot use it in dumps any more.
Actually, that's not true - I'm being silly. We can use the
AUTHORIZATION clause instead of ALTER SCHEMA ... OWNER TO :)
Ugh. Definitely an oversight. Don't suppose you want to think about
pulling the name out of the DROP command ;-) ?
Yeah, I've already done it - it's ugleeey, but it works :P
I'm running out of time unfortunately, and I need to know from you
whether I should go back to my work on making owner and
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I tried adding the extra scan in and it as all well and good up until
> the second where I realised that the TocEntry struct has no field that
> allows me to know the correct way of finding the full descriptor of each
> object.
Ugh. Definit
But...it seems kind of hacky to scan it again for owners and privs - are
you sure you want me to go that way?
If there's not a big performance penalty, sure. Being fully compatible
with existing archive files is a sufficient win to justify sins much
worse than this one.
Ah, crap.
I tried adding t
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Out of interest - have you developed an opinion on the
> pg_get_serial_sequence thing?
Will apply as soon as I get a chance --- I'd intended to clean out the
patch queue today, but didn't get past Magnus' stuff.
> Also, what's the latest I ca
If there's not a big performance penalty, sure. Being fully compatible
with existing archive files is a sufficient win to justify sins much
worse than this one.
Out of interest - have you developed an opinion on the
pg_get_serial_sequence thing? Also, what's the latest I can get pg_dump
fixes i
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But...it seems kind of hacky to scan it again for owners and privs - are
> you sure you want me to go that way?
If there's not a big performance penalty, sure. Being fully compatible
with existing archive files is a sufficient win to justify
I intend to make new archives created with 7.5 pg_dump have the fix, and
restoring pre 7.5 binary dumps will have exactly the previous
behaviour. The reason for this is that extracting the acls and owners
to the end requires scanning the entire archive twice - not necessarily
something we wan
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I intend to make new archives created with 7.5 pg_dump have the fix, and
> restoring pre 7.5 binary dumps will have exactly the previous
> behaviour. The reason for this is that extracting the acls and owners
> to the end requires scanning
OK,
I think it might save me some time if I get some guidance on how we
should modify pg_dump to fix the owner/grants issue.
I intend to make new archives created with 7.5 pg_dump have the fix, and
restoring pre 7.5 binary dumps will have exactly the previous
behaviour. The reason for this is
16 matches
Mail list logo
