(2012/02/22 9:30), Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of mar feb 21 15:54:03 -0300 2012:
>>> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun feb 20 12:37:45 -0300 2012:
>>>> As per http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2012-02/msg00304.php
>>>> there is no switch case in shdepReassignOwned for foreign data wrappers.
>>> I'm gonna take a stab at fixing this now (the simple way).
>> Here's the patch I have; last minute opinions. I intend to push a
>> backpatch to 9.1 and 9.0. 8.4 has the same problem, but since Heikki
>> punted in e356743f3ed45c36dcc4d0dbf6c1e8751b3d70b5, I'm not going to
>> bother either.
> Looks roughly like what I expected, but I haven't tested it.
I did some tests. The results look good to me. Please find attached a
logfile. My only concern on the patch is
+AlterForeignServerOwner_internal(Relation rel, HeapTuple tup, Oid
+ Form_pg_foreign_server form;
- srvId = HeapTupleGetOid(tup);
form = (Form_pg_foreign_server) GETSTRUCT(tup);
if (form->srvowner != newOwnerId)
@@ -366,10 +388,15 @@ AlterForeignServerOwner(const char *name, Oid
/* Superusers can always do it */
I wonder if superusers can always do it. For example, is it OK for
superusers to change the ownership of a foreign server owned by old_role
to new_role that doesn't have USAGE privilege on its foreign data wrapper.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2012-02-22 10:07:16|
|Subject: Extensions default full version (was: Displaying accumulated autovacuum cost)|
|Previous:||From: Noah Misch||Date: 2012-02-22 07:06:49|
|Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2|