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 18:34:58 |
Message-ID: | 388710.1616351698@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> 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.
Actually ... said code already DOES do that, so now I'm confused.
I tried
regression=# create user joe;
CREATE ROLE
regression=# create database joe owner joe;
CREATE DATABASE
regression=# \q
$ pg_dump -Fc joe >joe.dump
$ pg_restore --create -f - joe.dump | more
and I see
--
-- Name: joe; Type: DATABASE; Schema: -; Owner: joe
--
CREATE DATABASE joe WITH TEMPLATE = template0 ENCODING = 'SQL_ASCII' LOCALE = 'C';
ALTER DATABASE joe OWNER TO joe;
so at least in this case it's doing the right thing. We need a bit
more detail about the context in which it's doing the wrong thing
for you.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-03-21 19:02:58 | Re: default result formats setting |
Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2021-03-21 18:32:28 | Re: Built-in connection pooler |