| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: patch: move dumpUserConfig call in dumpRoles function of pg_dumpall.c |
| Date: | 2011-07-28 13:44:20 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa4rDTvaYPez+LO1=f-CRR2ig2dKTyc8MYecS0wQqn9nA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> writes:
>> Currently if you use 'ALTER ROLE rolename SET ROLE', pg_dumpall will
>> dump an 'ALTER ROLE' out right after the 'CREATE ROLE' statement.
>
> I think pg_dumpall is the very least of your problems if you do
> something like that. We probably ought to forbid it entirely.
Well, we had a long discussion of that on the thread Phil linked to,
and I don't think there was any consensus that forbidding it was the
right thing to do. Phil appears to be trying to implement the
proposal you made here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg00452.php
...although I don't think that what he did quite matches what you asked for.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-28 13:46:41 | Re: error: could not find pg_class tuple for index 2662 |
| Previous Message | Nikhil Sontakke | 2011-07-28 13:43:50 | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |