Hello
> Inspired by this message [1]
My interpretation of that message was not to go in this direction:
> (And no, I'd not look favorably on a response that proposes to fix
> that by adding the ability to copy ownership/permissions. There
> are probably security problems in such an idea.)
And I do see some issues in that regard with this patch:
> This functionality only works if the current user is also the owner of
> the source table.
With these changes, `INCLUDING ALL` requires ownership. I don't think
that's an acceptable breaking change? I also don't see a good way to
deal with that:
* either INCLUDING ALL doesn't include this - which would be confusing
* or it doesn't include this for non owned tables - even more confusing
* or it ignores ownership, which would be insecure
do you have a better suggestion?
There's also a privilege escalation issue in the current patch: if any
of the privileges have GRANT option, all of them will have in the new
table.
