From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Aleš Zelený <zeleny(dot)ales(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Invalid dump file after drop of role that previously created extension containing a table. |
Date: | 2023-09-21 19:30:37 |
Message-ID: | ZQyZ3QOOs0BlWGyf@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Greetings,
* Aleš Zelený (zeleny(dot)ales(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> Testcase description:
> ====================
> 1) An extension (I've used pg_cron as an example because it contains a
> table) is created by a database user (login role), and the initial
> privileges at extension creation are stored for the extension object
> (table in my test case) in the pg_catalog.pg_init_privs table.
> 2) Change the database user objects ownership from step 1 to another
> database user -> this step keeps the pg_catalog.pg_init_privs table
> content for the extension table from step 1 untouched.
> 3) Drop the database user used in step 1 and as its entry is deleted
> from the catalog, all that remains is the OID of the deleted database
> user in the pg_catalog.pg_init_privs table, later used by pg_dump.
Hrmpf. Yeah, seems like if we're going to allow extensions and
extension objects to be impacted by REASSIGN OWNED and such then we need
to be sure to update pg_init_privs accordingly. At least that's my
first thought seeing this. Would welcome thoughts from others on this
though.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | vignesh C | 2023-09-21 19:47:50 | Re: [16+] subscription can end up in inconsistent state |
Previous Message | Aleš Zelený | 2023-09-21 17:56:14 | Invalid dump file after drop of role that previously created extension containing a table. |