From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ALTER TYPE OWNER fails to recurse to multirange |
Date: | 2024-01-15 19:17:08 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZZFj_XQi9_nJ7f-6jQk=-m+Ki9RTAehBWf9E21bVmS+Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 1:27 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> That's pretty broken, isn't it? joe would own the multirange if he'd
> created the range to start with. Even if you think the ownerships
> ideally should be separable, this behavior causes existing pg_dump
> files to restore incorrectly, because pg_dump assumes it need not emit
> any commands about the multirange.
I agree that pg_dump doing the wrong thing is bad, but the SQL example
doesn't look broken if you ignore pg_dump. I have a feeling that the
source of the awkwardness here is that one SQL command is creating two
objects, and unlike the case of a table and a TOAST table, one is not
an implementation detail of the other or clearly subordinate to the
other. But how does that prevent us from making pg_dump restore the
ownership and permissions on each separately? If ownership is a
problem, aren't permissions also?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-01-15 19:17:24 | Re: Oversight in reparameterize_path_by_child leading to executor crash |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-01-15 19:07:13 | Re: [PATCH] LockAcquireExtended improvement |