Vitaly Burovoy <> writes:
> On 9/11/16, Kevin Grittner <> wrote:
>> I was able to find cases during test which were not handled
>> correctly with either version, so I tweaked the query a little.

> Hmm. Which one? Attempt to "SET ROLE <grouprole>"?
> Unfortunately, I after reading your letter I realized that I missed a
> case (it is not working even with your version):

I wasn't aware that this patch was doing anything nontrivial ...

After looking at it I think it's basically uninformed about how to test
for ownership.  An explicit join against pg_roles is almost never the
right way for SQL queries to do that.  Lose the join and write it more
like this:

+"SELECT pg_catalog.quote_ident(d.datname) "\
+"  FROM pg_catalog.pg_database d "\
+" WHERE substring(pg_catalog.quote_ident(d.datname),1,%d)='%s' "\
+"   AND (d.datistemplate OR pg_catalog.pg_has_role(d.datdba, 'USAGE'))"

See the information_schema views for precedent.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to