Re: [WIP] ALTER ... OWNER TO ... CASCADE

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dmitry Ivanov <d(dot)ivanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [WIP] ALTER ... OWNER TO ... CASCADE
Date: 2016-02-15 14:55:24
Message-ID: 16566.1455548124@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dmitry Ivanov <d(dot)ivanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> As of now there's no way to transfer the ownership of an object and all its
> dependent objects in one step. One has to manually alter the owner of each
> object, be it a table, a schema or something else.

TBH, this sounds like a completely terrible idea. There are far too many
sorts of dependencies across which one would not expect ownership to
propagate; for example, use of a function in a view, or even just a
foreign key dependency between two tables.

I'm not even clear that there are *any* cases where this behavior is
wanted, other than perhaps ALTER OWNER on an extension --- and even there,
what you would want is altering the ownership of the member objects, but
not everything that depends on the member objects.

So basically, a generic CASCADE facility sounds like a lot of work to
produce something that would seldom be anything but a foot-gun.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-02-15 15:02:12 Re: Small PATCH: check of 2 Perl modules
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2016-02-15 14:49:40 Re: Small PATCH: check of 2 Perl modules