| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade fails with non-standard ACL |
| Date: | 2019-11-09 02:26:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20191109022610.GC5128@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 06:03:06PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have begun looking at this one.
Another question I have: do we need to care more about other extra
ACLs applied to other object types? For example a subset of columns
on a table with a column being renamed could be an issue. Procedure
renamed in core are not that common still we did it.
Here is another idea I have regarding this set of problems. We could
use pg_depend on the source for system objects and join it with
pg_init_privs, and then compare it with the entries of the target
based on the descriptions generated by pg_describe_object(). If there
is an object renamed or an unmatching signature, then we would
immediately find about it, for any object types.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Wood | 2019-11-09 02:44:08 | Re: 'Invalid lp' during heap_xlog_delete |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2019-11-09 01:58:50 | Re: logical replication empty transactions |