Re: pg_dump broken for non-super user

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:

> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> > Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > > Attached patch implements this change to not LOCK the table in cases
> > > where we don't need to. I'll push this with my other changes to
> pg_dump
> > > tomorrow (and I've included it in an updated, complete, set of patches
> > > sent on the thread where those changes were being discussed already).
> >
> > > Wanted to include it here also for completeness.
> >
> > > Comments welcome, of course.
> >
> > Minor suggestion: instead of putting these comments and hardwired
> > knowledge here, I'd suggest putting them adjacent to the list of
> > DUMP_COMPONENT #defines, creating a symbol along the lines of
> > DUMP_COMPONENTS_REQUIRING_TABLE_LOCK. That approach would make it
> > far more likely that somebody changing the list of DUMP_COMPONENT
> > elements in future would notice the possible need to adjust the
> > requires-lock list.
>
> Good thought, I'll do that.
>

+1

I liked the new approach, initially when I was looking around code
,I also thought about why we need to hold lock on the object
which we are not interested in dumping. That is the reason
I suggested patch with adding check for DUMP_COMPONENT_DEFINITION
& DUMP_COMPONENT_DATA (but ofcourse that was not perfect)

Tom suggestion for adding DUMP_COMPONENTS_REQUIRING_TABLE_LOCK
is the nice way to fix this issue.

> Thanks!
>
> Stephen
>

--
Rushabh Lathia
www.EnterpriseDB.com