Re: Remaining 9.5 open items

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Remaining 9.5 open items
Date: 2015-11-30 22:14:40
Message-ID: 20151130221440.GK3685@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > The non-documentation question is around DROP OWNED. We need to either
> > have policies dropped by DROP OWNED (well, roles removed, unless it's
> > the last one, in which case the policy should be dropped), or update the
> > documentation to reflect that they don't. I had been thinking we'd
> > fix DROP OWNED to deal with the policies, but if folks feel it's too
> > late for that kind of a change, then we can simply document it. I don't
> > believe that's unreasonable for a new feature and we can work to get it
> > addressed in 9.6.
>
> DROP OWNED is documented as a mechanism to help you drop the role, so
> it should do whatever is needed for that. I don't think documenting the
> fact that it leaves the user as part of policies is good enough.

We already can't take care of everything with DROP OWNED though, since
we can't do cross-database queries, and the overall process almost
certainly requires additional effort (to reassign objects, etc...), so
while I'd be happier if policies were handled by it, I don't think it's
as serious of an issue.

Still, I'll get a patch worked up for it and then we can discuss the
merits of that patch going in to 9.5 now versus just into HEAD.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-11-30 22:21:16 Re: Remaining 9.5 open items
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-11-30 22:08:06 Re: Remaining 9.5 open items