From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Problem with pg_upgrade (8.4 -> 9.0) due to ALTER DATABASE SET ROLE |
Date: | 2011-01-06 04:10:02 |
Message-ID: | 201101060410.p064A2j02183@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >> I think pg_dumpall would have failed with this setup too, so I don't see
> >> this as a pg_upgrade bug, nor something that I am willing to risk adding
> >> to pg_upgrade.
>
> > If adding RESET SESSION AUTHORIZATION fixes the bug, I think we should
> > consider doing that.
>
> I think an appropriate response would be to prevent ALTER DATABASE SET
> ROLE. I really cannot believe that there are any situations where
> that's a good idea.
>
> Or we could take the approach somebody was just espousing about
>
> > Our job is to prevent the user from *accidentally*
> > shooting themselves in the foot.
>
> If they want to deliberately shoot themselves in the foot by hosing the
> login system like that, it's not our job to prevent it. But it's not
> our job to try to work around it, either.
Yep. We should probably make a decision on foot-guns and be consistent,
at least. Doing it half-way isn't helping anyone.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-01-06 04:24:50 | Re: Problem with pg_upgrade (8.4 -> 9.0) due to ALTER DATABASE SET ROLE |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-06 04:08:21 | Re: Problem with pg_upgrade (8.4 -> 9.0) due to ALTER DATABASE SET ROLE |