Re: Problem with pg_upgrade (8.4 -> 9.0) due to ALTER DATABASE SET ROLE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Problem with pg_upgrade (8.4 -> 9.0) due to ALTER DATABASE SET ROLE
Date
Msg-id AANLkTindCoTf=Num0uiKxKtX=-rrj3aHc=MqWE0uqTUH@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Problem with pg_upgrade (8.4 -> 9.0) due to ALTER DATABASE SET ROLE  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Problem with pg_upgrade (8.4 -> 9.0) due to ALTER DATABASE SET ROLE  (Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.


--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: wCTE: about the name of the feature
Next
From: Anton
Date:
Subject: Re: Native XML