Re: Bug #6593, extensions, and proposed new patch policy

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié abr 18 13:05:03 -0300 2012:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>> > Per bug #6593, REASSIGN OWNED fails when the affected role owns an
>> > extension.  This would be trivial to fix if extensions had support code
>> > for ALTER EXTENSION / OWNER, but they don't.  So the only back-patchable
>> > fix right now seems to be to throw an error on REASSIGN OWNED when the
>> > user owns an extension.  (If anyone wants to claim that we ought to work
>> > on a real fix that allows changing the owner internally from REASSIGN
>> > OWNED, without introducing ALTER EXTENSION support for doing so, let me
>> > know and I'll see about it.)
>>
>> I would be OK with the latter.
>
> Here's a patch for that.

Looks sane on a quick once-over. I do wonder about the comment,
though. If we add ALTER EXTENSION .. OWNER, should that try to change
the ownership of the objects contained inside the extension? Your
comment implies that the answer should be yes, but I'm not totally
convinced... what if the user has altered the ownership of the
objects manually, for example? I guess that's a question for another
day, just wondering out loud.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company