Re: pg_dump dump catalog ACLs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: pg_dump dump catalog ACLs
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwYMkTpkuu1CtA-n5+EMqbRxKqMwbMYqzOf8URKZ72Uf0w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump dump catalog ACLs  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
Responses Re: pg_dump dump catalog ACLs
Re: pg_dump dump catalog ACLs
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
On 03/02/2016 12:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Joe Conway (mail@joeconway.com) wrote:
>> On 03/01/2016 08:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Yes, we'd need some way to mark non-null ACLs as being "built-in
>>> defaults".  I do not see the need to have SQL syntax supporting that
>>> though.
>>
>> I was thinking the supporting syntax might be used by extensions, for
>> example.
>
> I tend to agree with Tom that we don't really need SQL syntax for this.

> I don't see any reason it couldn't be used by extensions also, though
> we'd have to do a bit more work on pg_dump to make it actually dump
> out any non-default ACLs for extension-owned objects.

Without any syntax, what does the extension do, directly insert into
this special catalog table?


​The desire in the thread I linked was for the user, not the extension, to alter the permissions.  In that context (and possibly here as well) PostgreSQL would (somehow?) recognize the ​target as being special and thus requiring adding or updating an entry into the supplemental catalog table when the usual GRANT/REVOKE SQL command is issued.

​In effect any object dependent upon an EXTENSION or that already exists in this special catalog table would need to have the supplemental procedure executed.

David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump dump catalog ACLs
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: plpgsql - DECLARE - cannot to use %TYPE or %ROWTYPE for composite types