Re: pg_dump dump catalog ACLs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump dump catalog ACLs
Date: 2016-03-01 04:52:37
Message-ID: 14969.1456807957@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> No, the point of it would be to not have pg_dump scripts overriding
>> installed-by-default ACLs. A newer PG version might have different
>> ideas about what those should be. I don't think this is exactly an
>> academic concern, either: wouldn't a likely outcome of your default-roles
>> work be that some built-in functions have different initial ACLs than
>> they do today? Good luck with that, if pg_upgrade overwrites those
>> ACLs with the previous-version values.

> As it turns out, there isn't such an issue as the default for functions
> is to allow PUBLIC to EXECUTE and therefore we don't dump out ACLs for
> most functions. The follow-on change to this patch is to modify those
> functions to *not* have the default/NULL ACL (and also drop the explicit
> if (!superuser()) ereport() checks in those functions), which will work
> just fine and won't be overwritten during pg_upgrade because those
> functions currently just have the default ACL, which we don't dump out.

Yes, so it would probably manage to not fail during 9.6 -> 9.7 migration.
But you *won't ever again* get to change the default ACLs on those
functions. That does not seem like a great bet from here.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rushabh Lathia 2016-03-01 05:34:14 Logic problem in SerializeSnapshot()
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2016-03-01 04:49:56 Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics