It occurred to me after I wrote that functions with 'security definer'
would present a problem with any default owner changing scheme. I like the
mass reassignment suggestion.
andrew
Chris wrote:
> Ah OK, I must have been thinking of the database owner check. I'd vote
> for (1) checking that they own no objects and by default owning all
> their stuff to the database owner. Plus add an optional clause:
>
> DROP USER foo OWNER TO bob;
>
> Chris
>
>>
>> The docs (new and old) explicitly state you can do this; see for
>> example http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.3/static/sql-dropuser.html
>>
[snip]
>> But ISTM that in such a case the user's objects should possibly be
>> reassigned to the database owner (who can't be dropped), in kinda the
>> same way that a *nix process that is orphaned is reparented to init. I
>> guess that might break other things, or would it?
>>
>> Or maybe we need 'drop user foo with cascade'.
>>
