Re: PGXS: REGRESS_OPTS=--load-language=plpgsql - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: PGXS: REGRESS_OPTS=--load-language=plpgsql
Date
Msg-id 201002211925.o1LJPSn18069@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PGXS: REGRESS_OPTS=--load-language=plpgsql  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: PGXS: REGRESS_OPTS=--load-language=plpgsql
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Feb 20, 2010, at 10:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> There is a very clear set of behaviors that CORL ought to have given
> >> the precedents of our other COR commands.  If we don't make it do
> >> things that way then we are going to surprise users, and we are also
> >> going to paint ourselves into a corner because we won't be able to
> >> fix it later without creating compatibility gotchas.
> 
> > Exactly.  I agree completely.
> 
> Attached is a draft patch (no doc changes) that implements CREATE OR
> REPLACE LANGUAGE following the semantics used in CREATE OR REPLACE
> FUNCTION, namely that in addition to whatever privileges you need to
> do the CREATE, you need to be owner of the existing entry if any;
> and the recorded ownership and permissions don't change.  It's not bad
> at all --- net addition of 40 lines.  So if we want to go at it this
> way, it's certainly feasible.
> 
> I've got mixed feelings about the ownership check.  If you get past
> the normal CREATE LANGUAGE permission checks, then either you are
> superuser, or you are database owner and you are trying to recreate
> a language from a pg_pltemplate entry with tmpldbacreate true.
> So it would fail only for a database owner who's trying to do
> C.O.R.L. on a superuser-installed language.  Which arguably is a case
> we ought to allow.  On the other hand, the case where not throwing an
> error would really matter is in trying to do pg_restore --single, and
> in that case even if we allowed the C.O.R.L. it would still spit up on
> the ALTER LANGUAGE OWNER that pg_dump is presumably going to emit right
> afterwards (except if using --no-owner, I guess).  So I'm not sure
> we'd really be gaining much by omitting the ownership check, and it
> would certainly be less consistent with other C.O.R. commands if we
> don't apply such a check.

How is pg_migrator affected by this?  It always loads the the dump as
the super-user.  How will the pg_dump use CREATE OR REPLACE LANGUAGE?

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.comPG East:  http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do + If your life is a hard
drive,Christ can be your backup. +
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gokulakannan Somasundaram
Date:
Subject: A thought on Index Organized Tables
Next
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: scheduler in core