From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes |
Date: | 2002-02-24 23:33:07 |
Message-ID: | 13392.1014593587@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Maybe indexes and TOAST tables shouldn't have ownership it all. (Set
> relowner to 0.) Since only owners can create these things, there doesn't
> seem to be a point in maintaining ownership.
That's a good thought. At one time we allowed non-owners to create
indexes on tables, but it was correctly pointed out that this was a
bad idea (think UNIQUE index, or a functional index that always
causes an error...). I can't see a real good reason for either indexes
or TOAST tables to have a concept of ownership distinct from the parent
table.
psql's \d displays might have some trouble with this, and pg_dump might
get confused too. But fixing them would be a net improvement in
robustness so it's probably a reasonable thing to do.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-02-24 23:34:42 | Basic DOMAIN Support |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-02-24 23:20:09 | Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes |