From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump / restore of empty database gives errors |
Date: | 2003-02-23 23:36:04 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0302232115240.1618-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> Hmm. So the real story here is that the permissions set up by initdb
> for PUBLIC are actually an illegal state: postgres has granted
> permissions to public that it isn't allowed to.
Yes, the way the permissions are initialized in the catalog templates
DATA(insert OID = 11 ( "pg_catalog" PGUID "{=U}" ));
DATA(insert OID = 99 ( "pg_toast" PGUID "{=}" ));
DATA(insert OID = 2200 ( "public" PGUID "{=UC}" ));
produce an invalid state. I hadn't thought that this would create a
problem for pg_dump, but I will hurry up fixing it. (I will probably put
explicit GRANT commands into initdb.)
> (There may also be an issue with the order in which pg_dump issues its
> revoke/grant operations, ie, there might be legal combinations that it
> can't reproduce.)
If you don't do manual surgery on aclitem's then I am convinced that it is
not possible to arrive at an undumpable state. This is a consequence of
the way it's implemented.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-24 02:21:55 | Re: Loss of cluster status |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-02-23 21:02:27 | Re: ILIKE |