Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-03-07 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > * Frank van Vugt (ftm.van.v...@foxi.nl) wrote: > > Well, I didn't run into this issue with any of my db's that 'nicely' use > > tables in various schema's, it was actually the one 'older' db with > > everything > > in the public schema

Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-13 Thread Stephen Frost
Frank, * Frank van Vugt (ftm.van.v...@foxi.nl) wrote: > Well, I didn't run into this issue with any of my db's that 'nicely' use > tables in various schema's, it was actually the one 'older' db with > everything > in the public schema that brought it up, so maybe keeping one of those around >

Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-13 Thread Frank van Vugt
Hi Stephen, Op maandag 13 februari 2017 09:10:42 schreef Stephen Frost: > We should be able to get it addressed shortly. Great, 'as always', I'd like to add! Thanks for the great work, people. This cannot be stated too often... > For your specific case Thanks for the additional info,

Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-13 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 02/13/2017 07:52 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: Greetings, * Adrian Klaver (adrian.kla...@aklaver.com) wrote: On 02/13/2017 06:04 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: * Adrian Klaver (adrian.kla...@aklaver.com) wrote: I am following this up to the point of not understanding what exactly changed between 9.5

Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-13 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, * Adrian Klaver (adrian.kla...@aklaver.com) wrote: > On 02/13/2017 06:04 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >* Adrian Klaver (adrian.kla...@aklaver.com) wrote: > >>I am following this up to the point of not understanding what > >>exactly changed between 9.5 and 9.6. Namely 9.5 does include the

Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-13 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 02/13/2017 06:04 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: Adrian, * Adrian Klaver (adrian.kla...@aklaver.com) wrote: I am following this up to the point of not understanding what exactly changed between 9.5 and 9.6. Namely 9.5 does include the default ACL's in the dump output and 9.6 does not. Quite a

Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-13 Thread Stephen Frost
Frank, * Frank van Vugt (ftm.van.v...@foxi.nl) wrote: > Op zaterdag 11 februari 2017 15:28:55 schreef Tom Lane: > > I'm inclined to argue that it was a mistake to include any non-pinned > > objects in pg_init_privs. > > > We might need to fix pg_dump too, but I think these entries in > >

Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-13 Thread Stephen Frost
Adrian, * Adrian Klaver (adrian.kla...@aklaver.com) wrote: > I am following this up to the point of not understanding what > exactly changed between 9.5 and 9.6. Namely 9.5 does include the > default ACL's in the dump output and 9.6 does not. Quite a bit in pg_dump changed, but the relevant bit

Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-13 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > I'm not seeing a very simple answer for this, unfortunately. > > I'm inclined to argue that it was a mistake to include any non-pinned > objects in pg_init_privs. The reason initdb leaves some objects

Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-13 Thread Frank van Vugt
Hi Tom/Stephen/Adrian, Op zaterdag 11 februari 2017 15:28:55 schreef Tom Lane: > I'm inclined to argue that it was a mistake to include any non-pinned > objects in pg_init_privs. > We might need to fix pg_dump too, but I think these entries in > pg_init_privs should simply not be there. Thanks

Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-11 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 02/11/2017 02:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: Greetings, * Frank van Vugt (ftm.van.v...@foxi.nl) wrote: I noticed the following and wondered whether this is intentional or an oversight in pg_dump's '-c' option? The clean option causes the public schema to be dropped and recreated, but this is

Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost writes: > I'm not seeing a very simple answer for this, unfortunately. I'm inclined to argue that it was a mistake to include any non-pinned objects in pg_init_privs. The reason initdb leaves some objects unpinned is exactly because they can be dropped and

Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-11 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, * Frank van Vugt (ftm.van.v...@foxi.nl) wrote: > I noticed the following and wondered whether this is intentional or an > oversight in pg_dump's '-c' option? > > The clean option causes the public schema to be dropped and recreated, but > this is done with the default schema

Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-11 Thread Frank van Vugt
Hi Adrian, Op zaterdag 11 februari 2017 13:31:17 schreef Adrian Klaver: > I see the same thing now. Glad you do ;) > That seems to cause a problem Yeah, I originally ran into this when I noticed that on a restored db a regular user lost access to tables created by him in the public schema.

Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-11 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 02/11/2017 01:14 PM, Frank van Vugt wrote: Hi Adrian, Op zaterdag 11 februari 2017 13:02:29 schreef Adrian Klaver: What version of Postgres? Ah, sorry, missed copying that in: postgres=# select version(); version

Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-11 Thread Frank van Vugt
Hi Adrian, Op zaterdag 11 februari 2017 13:02:29 schreef Adrian Klaver: > What version of Postgres? Ah, sorry, missed copying that in: postgres=# select version(); version

Re: [GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-11 Thread Adrian Klaver
On 02/11/2017 12:42 PM, Frank van Vugt wrote: > L.S. > > I noticed the following and wondered whether this is intentional or an > oversight in pg_dump's '-c' option? What version of Postgres? Because when I do it on 9.5.5 I get: test=# create database publictest;

[GENERAL] intentional or oversight? pg_dump -c does not restore default priviliges on schema public

2017-02-11 Thread Frank van Vugt
L.S. I noticed the following and wondered whether this is intentional or an oversight in pg_dump's '-c' option? The clean option causes the public schema to be dropped and recreated, but this is done with the default schema priviliges, which are not the same as the ones assigned during create