On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Joe Conway (m...@joeconway.com) wrote: > > On 03/01/2016 08:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> writes: > > >> Would it be a terrible idea to add some attribute to ACLs which can be > > >> used to indicate they should not be dumped (and supporting syntax)? > > > > > > Yes, we'd need some way to mark non-null ACLs as being "built-in > > > defaults". I do not see the need to have SQL syntax supporting that > > > though. > > > > I was thinking the supporting syntax might be used by extensions, for > > example. > > I tend to agree with Tom that we don't really need SQL syntax for this. > > > > Actually, wouldn't you need to mark individual aclitems as built-in > > > or not? Consider a situation where we have some function foo() that > > > by default has EXECUTE permission granted to some built-in "pg_admin" > > > role. If a given installation then also grants EXECUTE to "joe", > > > what you really want to have happen is for pg_dump to dump only the > > > grant to "joe". Mentioning pg_admin's grant would tie the dump to > > > a particular major PG version's idea of what the built-in roles are, > > > which is what I'm arguing we need to avoid. > > > > Yes, I guess it would need to be a per aclitem attribute. > > Agreed. > > > > I guess this could also be addressed by having two separate aclitem > > > columns, one that is expected to be frozen after initdb and one for > > > user-added grants. > > > > Yeah, that would work, but seems kind of ugly. > > Rather than have two aclitem columns in every catalog, since this > information is only used by pg_dump and not during normal operation, we > could use the approach that pg_description took and have an independent > catalog table which just contains all non-NULL "system" ACLs. We could > populate it at the bottom of system_views.sql, so that we don't have to > explicitly think about updating that table whenever there's a change to > what the default ACLs are. > > I don't see any reason it couldn't be used by extensions also, though > we'd have to do a bit more work on pg_dump to make it actually dump > out any non-default ACLs for extension-owned objects. > It sounds like this train of thought would resolve this complaint? http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CADmxfmmz-ATwptaidTSAF0XE=cpeikmyc00sj6t9xf6kcv5...@mail.gmail.com Namely allowing users to edit permissions on extension objects and have those changes dumped and then restored after the dependent CREATE EXTENSION command is executed during pg_restore. Did I interpret that right? David J.