Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly.buro...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 9/11/16, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
