Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes
Date: 2002-03-05 21:08:54
Message-ID: 200203052108.g25L8s621124@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches


OK, I propose that we do the index part of this patch too. No one seems
to know if seting the index user id to zero in pg_class will break
things so we may as keep it consistent. Can you send that over?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neil Conway wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 01:50, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > > OK, the issue with this patch is that it fixes ownership of INDEXES.
> > >
> > > I thought the resubmitted patch did no such thing?
>
> That's correct.
>
> > > > Now, we are we going with this? Can we just remove ownership of indexes
> > > > totally? And sequences?
> > >
> > > How did you get from indexes to sequences? The issues are completely
> > > different.
> >
> > The poster mentioned it. What does it matter? I am asking.
>
> I think ownership is still valid for sequences (after I asked about it,
> I thought about it some more -- sequences can be used by multiple
> tables, and their ownership is actually used by the system).
>
> > > I'm in favor of considering that indexes and toast tables have no
> > > separate ownership, and storing zero in pg_class.relowner for them.
> > > However, I have not looked to see what this might break. It might
> > > be more trouble than it's worth.
> >
> > Well, before we reject this patch, we should decide what we are going to
> > do. Of course, indexes are still in pg_class, and putting zero in there
> > for a user could be trouble. It may be easier to just apply the patch.
>
> Well, the latest version of "the patch" doesn't do much -- it just
> refactors the code involved, there is no change in functionality (I
> removed the ownership-changing code on Tom's request). Please apply it
> -- it's quite uncontroversial. If at some later date we decide to apply
> the additional ownership changing code, that's simple to do.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Neil
>
> --
> Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
> PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2002-03-05 21:17:42 Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes
Previous Message Neil Conway 2002-03-05 19:18:41 Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes