From: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "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: | 2016-09-29 08:04:48 |
Message-ID: | CAJrrPGeyTAHT1ysWSayQpUvGjJ+rWeFVErOZ6VS1ps_Rh+6sQA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 06:39 AM, Haribabu Kommi
> kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>
> Still i feel the GRANT statements should be present, as the create
> database statement
> is generated only with -C option. So attached patch produces the GRANT
> statements based
> on the -x option.
>
>
> The attached patch does the job fine. However, I am a little skeptical
> about this addition, since, it is clearly mentioned in the documentation of
> pg_dump that it would not restore global objects, then why expecting this.
> This addditon makes pg_dump -C somewhat special as now it is restoring
> these grant statements. Only if we consider the popular method of
> dump-restore mentioned in the thread (https://www.postgresql.org/me
> ssage-id/E1VYMqi-0001P4-P4%40wrigleys.postgresql.org) with pg_dumpall -g
> and then individual pg_dump, then it would be helpful to have this patch.
>
Thanks for your comments.
I am also not sure whether pg_dumpall -g and then individual pg_dump
is the more widely used approach or not? If it is the case, it is better
to fix the grant statements with -C option, otherwise I agree that
this patch is not required.
Any opinions from other members?
Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2016-09-29 08:05:19 | Re: IF (NOT) EXISTS in psql-completion |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-09-29 07:59:55 | Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |