Re: pg_dump: bug?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump: bug?
Date: 2002-02-02 05:29:34
Message-ID: 14987.1012627774@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> writes:
> Now, is this a bug?

Good question. I don't think this is the only example of a
non-self-consistent situation that could arise after a series of
ALTER commands; I'm not sure that we can or should try to solve
every one.

However, it does seem that a superuser should be able to create
databases on behalf of users who can't themselves do so. So
I'd say that we need a "CREATE DATABASE foo WITH OWNER bar" option.
Then pg_dumpall should emit such critters rather than the
circumlocution it uses now.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Don Baccus 2002-02-02 06:14:50 Re: pg_dump: bug?
Previous Message Neil Conway 2002-02-02 04:40:55 pg_dump: bug?