| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug #6593, extensions, and proposed new patch policy |
| Date: | 2012-04-19 21:08:38 |
| Message-ID: | m2ipgvh1k9.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Remember that we're talking about REASSIGN OWNED here, which will
> automatically reassign not only the extension itself, but also the
> contained objects. There is no danger that we will end up with an
> inconsistent installation. Also, if the objects in the extension have
> been manually given to someone else, they will stay owned by that other
> user, precisely because the code as written does not recurse.
Oh, right, I forgot the scope of the command. Given those bits of missed
context, +1 from me here. Sorry about missing that in my previous email.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-19 22:39:31 | Plan stability versus near-exact ties in cost estimates |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-04-19 20:30:04 | Re: Bug #6593, extensions, and proposed new patch policy |