Re: [WIP] ALTER ... OWNER TO ... CASCADE

> TBH, this sounds like a completely terrible idea. There are far too many
> sorts of dependencies across which one would not expect ownership to
> propagate; for example, use of a function in a view, or even just a
> foreign key dependency between two tables.
>
> I'm not even clear that there are *any* cases where this behavior is
> wanted, other than perhaps ALTER OWNER on an extension --- and even there,
> what you would want is altering the ownership of the member objects, but
> not everything that depends on the member objects.
>
> So basically, a generic CASCADE facility sounds like a lot of work to
> produce something that would seldom be anything but a foot-gun.

DELETE FROM or TRUNCATE could be a foot-gun too, but it's not a reason to
remove tham. I faced with problem when I tried to change owner of datadase with
all objects inside. Think, this feature could be useful although it should
restricted to superuser obly.

--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/