| From: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Orphaned users in PG16 and above can only be managed by Superusers |
| Date: | 2025-03-24 06:18:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAE9k0PkUMcCAwHk49vET3q3hG2j8jDtUgEfJU-2ntVxgPh=-cw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thank you, Robert and Tom, for sharing your valuable insights, and
apologies for the slight delay in my response. From the discussion,
what I understand is that we aim to extend the current DROP ROLE
syntax to include the CASCADE/RESTRICT option, which has been
introduced in the latest SQL standard, as mentioned by Tom. However,
as Robert pointed out, implementing the CASCADE option for handling
dependent objects that span multiple databases is not feasible at the
moment. The RESTRICT option, as I understand it, is already the
default behavior. Therefore, we will proceed with implementing the
CASCADE/RESTRICT syntax specifically for handling dependent roles,
rather than the dependent database objects like tables, views, etc.,
which can span multiple databases.
Please correct me if I’m mistaken or if there’s anything I’ve missed
in my understanding. thanks.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2025-03-24 06:33:48 | Re: Patch: Cover POSITION(bytea,bytea) with tests |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2025-03-24 05:38:18 | Re: [PoC] Reducing planning time when tables have many partitions |