Greetings,
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Moshe Jacobson <moshe@neadwerx.com> writes:
> > Scenario:
>
> > 1. Extension is installed into its own schema. Installation is now
> > complete.
> > 2. Extension creates a new table in its schema
> > 3. Extension changes ACLs on the table.
>
> Extensions are not actors, so claiming that "the extension" did something
> is at best pretty fuzzy thinking.
Agreed.
> > 4. After changing ACLs, the table is added to the extension (ALTER
> > EXTENSION)
> > 5. A pg_dump of this database will now include ACL commands for the
> > table.
>
> Hmm. There's an argument to be made that ALTER EXTENSION ADD should
> absorb whatever the object's current ACLs are into the pg_init_privs
> entries for the extension. (I don't think it does that now, though
> I might be wrong.) However ...
I've not gone and looked yet, but I doubt that it does. I think I can
agree with the argument that it really should add those ACLs to
pg_init_privs. Of course, any furhter manipulation of the ACLs from
that point will cause those ACLs to be included in the pg_dump.
I'll take a look at ALTER EXTENSION ADD and pg_init_privs.
> > 6. A pg_restore of this file will give warnings because the ACLs refer
> > to a table that is not created as part of the installation process.
>
> I think this scenario is simply pilot error, or at least gross abuse of
> the extension system. If you dump and reload a DB containing an extension,
> the extension definition that's fetched by CREATE EXTENSION is expected
> to define (at least) all the objects that belonged to the extension in the
> old DB. You can't just randomly ALTER EXTENSION and not update the
> extension definition script to match.
Agreed.
Thanks!
Stephen
