On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:50:17AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > Do this: > > > > CREATE DATABASE test1; > > REVOKE CONNECT ON DATABASE test1 FROM PUBLIC; > > > > Run pg_dumpall. > > > > In 9.5, this produces > > > > CREATE DATABASE test1 WITH TEMPLATE = template0 OWNER = peter; > > REVOKE ALL ON DATABASE test1 FROM PUBLIC; > > REVOKE ALL ON DATABASE test1 FROM peter; > > GRANT ALL ON DATABASE test1 TO peter; > > GRANT TEMPORARY ON DATABASE test1 TO PUBLIC; > > > > In 9.6, this produces only > > > > CREATE DATABASE test1 WITH TEMPLATE = template0 OWNER = peter; > > GRANT TEMPORARY ON DATABASE test1 TO PUBLIC; > > GRANT ALL ON DATABASE test1 TO peter; > > > > Note that the REVOKE statements are missing. This does not > > correctly recreate the original state. > > I see what happened here, the query in dumpCreateDB() needs to be > adjusted to pull the default information to then pass to > buildACLComments(), similar to how the objects handled by pg_dump work. > The oversight was in thinking that databases didn't have any default > rights granted, which clearly isn't correct. > > I'll take care of that in the next day or so and add an appropriate > regression test.
This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.ga447...@tornado.leadboat.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers