Kevin Grittner wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian writes: > >>> One question I have is why we even bother to allow the database > >>> username to be specified? Shouldn't we just hard-code that to > >>> 'postgres'? > >> > >> Only if you want to render pg_upgrade unusable by a significant > >> fraction of people. "postgres" is not the hard wired name of the > >> bootstrap superuser. > > > > I was really wondering if I should be using that hard-coded name, > > rather than allowing the user to supply it. They have to compile in > > a different name, and I assume that name is accessible somewhere. > > At home, on my ubuntu machine, I built and ran initdb without > specifying a superuser. It used my OS login of "kevin". Then, > > test=# \du > List of roles > Role name | Attributes | Member > of > -----------+------------------------------------------------+-------- > --- > kevin | Superuser, Create role, Create DB, Replication | {} > > test=# create user xxx superuser; > CREATE ROLE > test=# \c test xxx > You are now connected to database "test" as user "xxx". > test=# alter user kevin rename to yyy; > ALTER ROLE > test=# \du > List of roles > Role name | Attributes | Member > of > -----------+------------------------------------------------+-------- > --- > xxx | Superuser, Replication | {} > yyy | Superuser, Create role, Create DB, Replication | {} > > If I run pg_upgrade now, what will it pick? How?
Good point --- you would need the user flag in pg_upgrade. Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers