Re: pg_get__*_ddl consolidation

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_get__*_ddl consolidation
Date: 2026-03-20 13:31:11
Message-ID: bf49721a-a56f-4bdc-ac48-5d4dc1d01805@dunslane.net
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2026-03-20 Fr 9:15 AM, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2026-Mar-19, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Greetings
>>
>> Euler Taveira and I have been working on consolidating these patches.
> Hmm, did you remove the permissions checking to dump objects? I thought
> we had concluded that these were needed -- ie. you have to have at least
> CONNECT to a database to be able to dump it, and so on. This way, the
> functions do not override a DBAs intention to hide the information, when
> they run REVOKE on the catalogs. I know this is a nonstandard thing to
> do, but some people do it nonetheless.
>
> https://postgr.es/m/202511131446.uzn4c25ljmd4@alvherre.pgsql
>

Oh, hmm, yes, I think we did. Will work on it.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jianghua Yang 2026-03-20 13:32:46 Re: [PATCH] initdb: Treat empty -U argument as unset username
Previous Message Amul Sul 2026-03-20 13:26:42 Re: pg_waldump: support decoding of WAL inside tarfile