Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER
Date: 2004-06-02 15:35:01
Message-ID: 24868.1086190501@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> Someone else suggested having pg_dump dump all objects without ownership
>> (so, on restore, they'd all initially be owned by the user running the
>> script, hopefully a superuser) and then doing ALTER OWNERs and GRANTs at
>> the bottom.

> Actually, this would probably only be reasonable if you fixed the ACLs 
> after an ALTER OWNER, like you proposed earlier.

I was envisioning pg_dump not issuing any GRANTs until after the
ALTER OWNER steps, so it really wouldn't matter whether ALTER OWNER did
anything to the ACL list; it'd still be NULL at that point anyway.
(I do, however, have every intention of fixing ALTER OWNER that way
before 7.5 freeze.)

BTW, is pg_dump careful about the order in which it issues GRANTs?
Specifically, what about being sure that chains of GRANT OPTIONs
are re-granted in a legal sequence?  I don't recall any smarts in
the code about that...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2004-06-02 15:47:33
Subject: Re: Nested transactions and tuple header info
Previous:From: Shridhar DaithankarDate: 2004-06-02 15:33:45
Subject: Re: Converting postgresql.conf parameters to kilobytes

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group