Re: Autovaccuum vs temp tables crash - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Autovaccuum vs temp tables crash
Date
Msg-id CABUevEziE495+kOQmWh_rngOUvaMP4Zp_ZdFtNw9Kc53awHnUQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Autovaccuum vs temp tables crash  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Autovaccuum vs temp tables crash  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 4:18 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 02:48:58PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I think we need to either prevent dropping of temp namespaces *or* we need
> to create a new entry in pg_namespace in this particular case.

Perhaps I am missing something, but it would be just more simple to
now allow users to restrict that?

I can't parse what you are saying here. Now allow users to restrict what?


> I wonder if other "fun" things could happen if you go rename the namespace,
> haven't tried that yet...

In this case the OID remains the same, still there are some cases
where we rely on the namespace name, and one is CLUSTER.
objectaddress.c uses as well get_namespace_name_or_temp(), which would
be messed up, so it would be better to prevent a temp namespace to be
renamed.  Could ALTER SCHEMA OWNER TO also be a problem?

Or possibly altering permissions on it? 

--

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: Autovaccuum vs temp tables crash
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: Autovaccuum vs temp tables crash