| From: | Jacob Champion <champion(dot)p(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Akshat Jaimini <destrex271(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump needs SELECT privileges on irrelevant extension table |
| Date: | 2023-10-23 18:21:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAGu=u8jcD1DuazVmo9JoLe9jEwp7WnVncUEiagNaG-tpKEZ5uw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 1:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > This change would mean that policies added by a user after the extension
> > is created would just be lost by a pg_dump/reload, doesn't it?
>
> Yes. But I'd say that's unsupported, just like making other ad-hoc
> changes to extension objects is unsupported (and the effects will be
> lost on dump/reload). We specifically have support for user-added
> ACLs, and that's good, but don't claim that we have support for
> doing the same with policies.
Is this approach backportable?
(Adding Aleks to CC -- Timescale may want to double-check that the new
proposal still works for them.)
Thanks,
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-10-23 18:30:50 | Re: AW: AW: BUG #18147: ERROR: invalid perminfoindex 0 in RTE with relid xxxxx |
| Previous Message | Hans Buschmann | 2023-10-23 17:05:03 | AW: AW: BUG #18147: ERROR: invalid perminfoindex 0 in RTE with relid xxxxx |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Isaac Morland | 2023-10-23 18:36:12 | Re: PostgreSQL domains and NOT NULL constraint |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2023-10-23 17:58:43 | Re: Show version of OpenSSL in ./configure output |