Re: Proposed TODO: CREATE .... WITH OWNER;

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposed TODO: CREATE .... WITH OWNER;
Date: 2004-10-24 00:05:52
Message-ID: 29281.1098576352@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Instead, we should have a "CREATE .... WITH OWNER username" extension to all
> of our CREATE <object> statements.

The main objection to this is that it makes the dump completely
unportable.

> CREATE followed by ALTER ... CHANGE OWNER would not be an adequate substitute.
> The orginal owner of the object (in the case of a restore, the superuser)
> retains all of their permissions on the object, which causes a lot of messy
> GRANT statements.

Not in 8.0.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2004-10-24 00:23:21 Re: Proposed TODO: CREATE .... WITH OWNER;
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2004-10-23 23:59:38 Proposed TODO: CREATE .... WITH OWNER;