It occurred to me after I wrote that functions with 'security definer' would present a problem with any default owner changing scheme. I like the mass reassignment suggestion.
andrew Chris wrote: > Ah OK, I must have been thinking of the database owner check. I'd vote > for (1) checking that they own no objects and by default owning all > their stuff to the database owner. Plus add an optional clause: > > DROP USER foo OWNER TO bob; > > Chris > >> >> The docs (new and old) explicitly state you can do this; see for >> example http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.3/static/sql-dropuser.html >> [snip] >> But ISTM that in such a case the user's objects should possibly be >> reassigned to the database owner (who can't be dropped), in kinda the >> same way that a *nix process that is orphaned is reparented to init. I >> guess that might break other things, or would it? >> >> Or maybe we need 'drop user foo with cascade'. >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
