Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > OK, the issue with this patch is that it fixes ownership of INDEXES.
>
> I thought the resubmitted patch did no such thing?
>
> > Now, we are we going with this? Can we just remove ownership of indexes
> > totally? And sequences?
>
> How did you get from indexes to sequences? The issues are completely
> different.
The poster mentioned it. What does it matter? I am asking.
> I'm in favor of considering that indexes and toast tables have no
> separate ownership, and storing zero in pg_class.relowner for them.
> However, I have not looked to see what this might break. It might
> be more trouble than it's worth.
Well, before we reject this patch, we should decide what we are going to
do. Of course, indexes are still in pg_class, and putting zero in there
for a user could be trouble. It may be easier to just apply the patch.
In fact, because it is pg_class, I am not sure we will ever know what
3rd party apps we will break.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
