On Jan21, 2011, at 03:03 , Robert Haas wrote: > It strikes me that it would be useful to have a GUC that sets the > owner of any new objects you create (much as you can control their > default schemas using search_path). Obviously, you'd need to restrict > it so that it wouldn't allow you to create an object owned by a role > to which you couldn't have given an object owned by yourself.
We could simply refuse to set default_owner to a rule the current user don't inherit from. If set via an ALTER DATABASE SET ROLE the setting would then simply be (silently) ignored - or at least this is how it work for ALTER DATABASE SET ROLE. > But > this is what Florian was trying to get at with his much-maligned ALTER > DATABASE .. SET ROLE, I think, and it seems to me that it would help > with this case, too. It's *precisely* what I was trying to get at! Great idea! It seems to avoid most of the issues people had with my ALTER DATABASE SET ROLE trick, too. > It's always struck me that using multiple > database logins would create all sorts of inconsistencies with > different objects ending up owned by different users, but I guess > until recently I was under the impression I was the only one who had > an issue with that. It seems not. Certainly not :-) best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
