From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "Re: Question about grant create on database and pg_dump/pg_dumpall |
Date: | 2016-10-03 19:50:28 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYGbeiDRvivJHsC5e7-BMxnmE7vNg571i8OWOx6HK=OOQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The fundamental thing we have to do in order to move forward on this is
> to rethink what's the division of labor between pg_dump and pg_dumpall.
> I find the patch as presented quite unacceptable because it's made no
> effort to do that (or even to touch the documentation).
>
> What do people think of this sketch:
>
> 1. pg_dump without --create continues to do what it does today, ie it just
> dumps objects within the database, assuming that database-level properties
> will already be set correctly for the target database.
>
> 2. pg_dump with --create creates the target database and also sets all
> database-level properties (ownership, ACLs, ALTER DATABASE SET, etc etc).
>
> 3. pg_dumpall loses all code relating to individual-database creation
> and property setting and instead relies on pg_dump --create to do that.
> This would leave only the code relating to "pg_dumpall -g" (ie, dump roles
> and tablespaces) within pg_dumpall itself.
Seems like a good sketch.
> One thing that would still be messy is that presumably "pg_dumpall -g"
> would issue ALTER ROLE SET commands, but it's unclear what to do with
> ALTER ROLE IN DATABASE SET commands. Should those become part of
> "pg_dump --create"'s charter? It seems like not, but I'm not certain.
I could go either way on this.
> Another thing that requires some thought is that pg_dumpall is currently
> willing to dump ACLs and other properties for template1/template0, though
> it does not invoke pg_dump on them. If we wanted to preserve that
> behavior while still moving the code that does those things to pg_dump,
> pg_dump would have to grow an option that would let it do that. But
> I'm not sure how much of that behavior is actually sensible.
I'm not sure, either, but it's usually bad when dump-and-restore
doesn't dump-and-restore things which a user might reasonably have
changed. That tends to lead to bug reports and/or pg_upgrade
failures.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-10-03 19:54:13 | Re: Showing parallel status in \df+ |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-10-03 19:46:20 | Re: Understanding “max_wal_size” and “min_wal_size” parameters default values from postgresql.conf file |