From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | kaido vaikla <kaido(dot)vaikla(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dumpall and owner of the extension |
Date: | 2024-01-23 16:30:37 |
Message-ID: | 4048426.1706027437@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
kaido vaikla <kaido(dot)vaikla(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Yes, i have a real problem. To keep things clear in database, my design is:
> - every application has own schema
> - every schema has owner who is not a user postgres
> - only schema owner can do DDL's on schema
> So if some application needs some extensions, then i give temporary
> suppersuser privilege to schema owner,
> if "create extension" needs it, extensions are installed "with schema"
> And revoke suppersuser privilege after extension inatall.
> I'm not sure, is it my design against postgres concept or not :(.
Well, it's certainly creating a problem for pg_dump: the alleged owner
of the extension doesn't have enough privilege to install it. The
easiest way to make pg_dump support this would be to have it issue
something like
SET ROLE extension_owner;
CREATE EXTENSION foo;
RESET ROLE;
but that would fail for you.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | kaido vaikla | 2024-01-23 16:40:15 | Re: pg_dumpall and owner of the extension |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-01-23 16:13:42 | Re: pg_dumpall and owner of the extension |