Russell Smith wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Jeff Davis wrote:
> >
> >
> >>CREATE ROLE test_role
> >> NOSUPERUSER INHERIT NOCREATEDB NOCREATEROLE;
> >>
> >>CREATE ROLE invalid_grantor
> >> SUPERUSER INHERIT NOCREATEDB NOCREATEROLE;
> >>
> >>SET ROLE invalid_grantor;
> >>GRANT "postgres" TO "test_role";
> >>SET ROLE postgres;
> >>
> >>select * from pg_roles;
> >>
> >>select pg_auth_members.*, ur.rolname, gr.rolname from pg_auth_members
> >>LEFT JOIN pg_roles ur ON roleid = oid
> >>LEFT JOIN pg_roles gr ON gr.oid = grantor;
> >>
> >>DROP ROLE invalid_grantor;
> >>
> >>select pg_auth_members.*, ur.rolname, gr.rolname from pg_auth_members
> >>LEFT JOIN pg_roles ur ON roleid = oid
> >>LEFT JOIN pg_roles gr ON gr.oid = grantor;
> >>
> >>DROP ROLE test_role;
> >>
> >
> >The problem here is that we allowed the drop of invalid_grantor. We are
> >missing a shared dependency on it.
> >
> So does this make a todo item?
>
> But this still leaves the concerns about you can currently get the
> database into an invalid state that can't be dumped and restored.
Correct, which makes it a bug (==> needs fixed) rather than a todo item.
We now have a problem because there may already be databases that are
undumpable. We might need to provide a workaround for people with such
a database.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
