| From: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: | 2025-03-10 05:45:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAE9k0Pm7sDWgNFAGRMCxDHZW6Ca3XsP9vu_GhBH9KORQ2y8=+w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 10:55 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I noticed that much of this code is lifted from DropRole(), and the new
> check_drop_role_dependency() function is only used by DropRole() right
> before it does the exact same scans. Couldn't we put the new dependency
> detection in those existing scans in DropRole()?
>
It can be done, but mixing the code that checks for the drop role
dependency with the code that removes entries for the role being
dropped from pg_auth_members could reduce clarity and precision. This
is more of a sanity check which I felt was necessary before we proceed
with actually dropping the role, starting with the deletion of drop
role entries from the system catalogs. I’m aware there’s some code
duplication, but I think it should be fine.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-03-10 06:08:39 | Re: Printing window function OVER clauses in EXPLAIN |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2025-03-10 05:35:22 | Re: vacuumdb changes for stats import/export |