pgsql: Fix two bugs in change_owner_recurse_to_sequences: it was
Log Message:
-----------
Fix two bugs in change_owner_recurse_to_sequences: it was grabbing an
overly strong lock on pg_depend, and it wasn't closing the rel when done.
The latter bug was masked by the ResourceOwner code, which is something
that should be changed.
Tags:
----
REL8_0_STABLE
Modified Files:
--------------
pgsql/src/backend/commands:
tablecmds.c (r1.142.4.2 -> r1.142.4.3)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c.diff?r1=1.142.4.2&r2=1.142.4.3)
Fix two bugs in change_owner_recurse_to_sequences: it was grabbing an
overly strong lock on pg_depend, and it wasn't closing the rel when done.
The latter bug was masked by the ResourceOwner code, which is something
that should be changed.
I assume that this behaviour makes change owner on a table change owner
of serial sequences?
Should we perhaps also propagate grant insert on a table to grant
select, update on dependent serial sequences?
Chris
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
I assume that this behaviour makes change owner on a table change owner
of serial sequences?
Yeah.
Should we perhaps also propagate grant insert on a table to grant
select, update on dependent serial sequences?
Doesn't really follow. That code is maintaining an invariant: the owner
of a table owns the associated indexes, toast table, sequences, etc.
There's no system-wide assumption that sequence privileges track table
privileges.
regards, tom lane
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:35:20AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
Should we perhaps also propagate grant insert on a table to grant
select, update on dependent serial sequences?Doesn't really follow. That code is maintaining an invariant: the owner
of a table owns the associated indexes, toast table, sequences, etc.
There's no system-wide assumption that sequence privileges track table
privileges.
I brought this up a few months ago. Tom, weren't your objections
based more on implementation concerns than on whether the idea
itself had merit?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2004-10/msg00511.php
--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/
Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes:
I brought this up a few months ago. Tom, weren't your objections
based more on implementation concerns than on whether the idea
itself had merit?
No, my point was that making implicit sequences work transparently
requires more thought than this. I'd like to see a fairly complete
plan put forward before we start installing random hacks on permissions.
regards, tom lane