From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "eKo1" <bernd(at)tti(dot)hn> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #2310: "ALTER TYPE name OWNER TO new_owner" not working |
Date: | 2006-03-10 01:10:54 |
Message-ID: | 29303.1141953054@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
I wrote:
> The relevant owner field for a composite type is pg_type.typowner.
> We don't bother to maintain pg_class.relowner for the subsidiary
> pg_class entry.
Actually, now that I look at it, there is a non-cosmetic issue here:
we seem to be creating a dependency link for the pg_class owner field.
We have to either not do that, or be willing to fix it during ALTER TYPE
OWNER. For instance
regression=# create user foo;
CREATE ROLE
regression=# create user bar;
CREATE ROLE
regression=# \c - foo
You are now connected as new user "foo".
regression=> create type mytype as (f1 int);
CREATE TYPE
regression=> \c - postgres
You are now connected as new user "postgres".
regression=# drop user foo;
ERROR: role "foo" cannot be dropped because some objects depend on it
DETAIL: owner of composite type mytype
owner of type mytype
regression=# alter type mytype owner to bar;
ALTER TYPE
regression=# drop user foo;
ERROR: role "foo" cannot be dropped because some objects depend on it
DETAIL: owner of composite type mytype
regression=#
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-10 02:47:46 | Re: BUG #2311: Toast table chunk_id overflow |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-10 00:50:19 | Re: BUG #2310: "ALTER TYPE name OWNER TO new_owner" not working |