On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 06:21, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net> writes:
>>> Did anything ever come of this discussion?
>>
>> I think it's a TODO --- nothing done about it as yet, AFAIR.
>>
>>> On one of the databases I
>>> was upgrading, I ran into a similar problem with roles that are set as
>>> roles. The problem seems to stem from pg_dumpall dumping roles in
>>> alphabetical order:
>>
>>> CREATE ROLE asha;
>>> ALTER ROLE asha SET role TO 'omniti';
>>> .. sometime later ...
>>> CREATE ROLE omniti;
>>
>> That seems like a pretty bizarre thing to do. Why would you want such a
>> setting?
>
> I'm sure there are several. I've seen (and done) this more than once
> to ensure that the owner of newly created object is the "shared role"
> and not the individual, for example.
>
Yeah, there are actually several of the roles that get set to the
"omniti" role, like the "robert" role, which doesn't have any issue
because it comes alphabetically after omniti. This also helps folks
get around several permission related issues (simplified management,
uniform permissions across users, simplified dependencies, etc..), but
object ownership is a key part of it.
Robert Treat
play: xzilla.net
work: omniti.com
hiring: l42.org/Lg
