| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OWNER TO on all objects |
| Date: | 2004-06-15 04:39:50 |
| Message-ID: | 40CE7D96.2060304@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Perhaps better to put these out towards the end of the dump, not right
> after the creation of the object? Or is that what you're doing?
I just inserted the ALTER OWNER statement between the CREATE and the
GRANTs. Why do you want them at the end of the dump?
> I would envision the safest procedure as creating all objects, loading
> all data, etc, then all ALTER OWNERs, then all GRANT/REVOKEs.
I don't yet understand your reasoning for wanting this all at the end...
> Not if you still own the table while loading into it (see above point).
Can we not load as superuser?
> However, this all assumes a complete dump/restore. Consider data-only
> restores. Consider partial restores using pg_restore's options for
> that. What happens then? It'd likely be appropriate to issue set
> session auth during scenarios involving pre-existing objects.
OK, i will test all those situations... What scenarios did you have in
mind?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-06-15 04:50:59 | Re: OWNER TO on all objects |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-06-15 04:23:45 | Re: 7.4.3 running a bit late ... |