On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 07:21:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The existing state of affairs is that a superuser who really needs to drop
> a temp schema can do so, if she's careful that it's not active. Pinning
> things would break that, or at least add an additional roadblock. If it's
> some sort of virtual pin rather than a regular pg_depend entry, then it
> *would* be impossible to get around (mumble ... DELETE FROM pg_namespace
> ... mumble). As against that, what problem are we fixing by preventing
> superusers from doing that? A careless superuser can screw things up
> arbitrarily badly in any case, so I'm not that fussed about the hazard
> that the namespace isn't idle.
And when you try to do chirugy on a corrupted cluster, it can be on
the contrary very useful to be able to work with objects and
manipulate them more freely as a superuser.
--
Michael
