Re: Typed table DDL loose ends

On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 19:34 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:44:53PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 21:57 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > * Users can CREATE TABLE OF on a type they don't own
> > > This in turns blocks the owner's ability to alter the table/type. However, we
> > > already have this hazard with composite-type columns. A TODO to address this
> > > broadly seems in order, but it's not a 9.1 issue.
> >
> > I think we should change that to mirror the inheritance policy: you have
> > to be the owner of the "parent". Note that this is newly relevant in
> > 9.1, because you couldn't change composite types before.
>
> Would we add that restriction to use of "CREATE TABLE t (c comptype)" as well,
> or just to "CREATE TABLE t OF comptype"?

Well, that's a tough one. It would be a regression. I would say no to
changing the former, because the fact that this prevents the type owner
from changing the type is not a regression because you couldn't change
types before at all.

Probably we need some privileges on types to address this properly.