From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dmitry Ivanov <d(dot)ivanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [WIP] ALTER ... OWNER TO ... CASCADE |
Date: | 2016-02-15 14:55:24 |
Message-ID: | 16566.1455548124@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dmitry Ivanov <d(dot)ivanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> As of now there's no way to transfer the ownership of an object and all its
> dependent objects in one step. One has to manually alter the owner of each
> object, be it a table, a schema or something else.
TBH, this sounds like a completely terrible idea. There are far too many
sorts of dependencies across which one would not expect ownership to
propagate; for example, use of a function in a view, or even just a
foreign key dependency between two tables.
I'm not even clear that there are *any* cases where this behavior is
wanted, other than perhaps ALTER OWNER on an extension --- and even there,
what you would want is altering the ownership of the member objects, but
not everything that depends on the member objects.
So basically, a generic CASCADE facility sounds like a lot of work to
produce something that would seldom be anything but a foot-gun.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-15 15:02:12 | Re: Small PATCH: check of 2 Perl modules |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-02-15 14:49:40 | Re: Small PATCH: check of 2 Perl modules |