Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> No, the point of it would be to not have pg_dump scripts overriding
>> installed-by-default ACLs. A newer PG version might have different
>> ideas about what those should be. I don't think this is exactly an
>> academic concern, either: wouldn't a likely outcome of your default-roles
>> work be that some built-in functions have different initial ACLs than
>> they do today? Good luck with that, if pg_upgrade overwrites those
>> ACLs with the previous-version values.
> As it turns out, there isn't such an issue as the default for functions
> is to allow PUBLIC to EXECUTE and therefore we don't dump out ACLs for
> most functions. The follow-on change to this patch is to modify those
> functions to *not* have the default/NULL ACL (and also drop the explicit
> if (!superuser()) ereport() checks in those functions), which will work
> just fine and won't be overwritten during pg_upgrade because those
> functions currently just have the default ACL, which we don't dump out.
Yes, so it would probably manage to not fail during 9.6 -> 9.7 migration.
But you *won't ever again* get to change the default ACLs on those
functions. That does not seem like a great bet from here.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
