Re: Fix pg_upgrade to preserve datdba

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fix pg_upgrade to preserve datdba
Date: 2021-03-21 18:23:38
Message-ID: 388155.1616351018@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info> writes:
>> On 3/21/21 12:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think maybe what we have here is a bug in pg_restore, its
>>> --create switch ought to be trying to update the database's
>>> ownership.

> Thanks for that. I like this patch a lot better.

Needs a little more work than that --- we should allow it to respond
to the --no-owner switch, for example. But I think likely we can do
it where other object ownership is handled. I'll look in a bit.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2021-03-21 18:29:03 Re: ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2021-03-21 18:22:00 Re: ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY