Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name
Date: 2010-11-05 19:30:27
Message-ID: 29821.1288985427@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Here's another question: if an extension's objects live (mostly or
>> entirely) in schema X, what happens if the possibly-unprivileged owner
>> of schema X decides to drop it? If the extension itself is considered
>> to live within the schema, then "the whole extension goes away" seems
>> like a natural answer. If not, you've got some problems.

> Currently, creating an extension is superuser only. So the owner of
> those objects is a superuser. My understanding is that the drop schema
> will then fail without any more code.

You're mistaken, and this case definitely does need more thought.
A schema owner is presumed to have the unconditional right to
drop anything in his schema, whether he owns it or not.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-11-05 19:36:37 temporary functions (and other object types)
Previous Message Daniel Farina 2010-11-05 19:28:33 Re: ALTER TABLE ... IF EXISTS feature?