> 16 февр. 2016 г., в 18:20, Alvaro Herrera
> написал(а):
>
> Vladimir Borodin wrote:
>
>>> Moreover, the use case you've sketched (ie, change ownership of all
>>> objects inside a database) doesn't actually have anything to do with
>>> following dependencies. It's a lot closer to REASSIGN OW
Vladimir Borodin wrote:
> > Moreover, the use case you've sketched (ie, change ownership of all
> > objects inside a database) doesn't actually have anything to do with
> > following dependencies. It's a lot closer to REASSIGN OWNED ... in
> > fact, it's not clear to me why REASSIGN OWNED doesn't
> Sometimes I hit the following. You have created a database and schema inside
> it from the superuser (i.e. postgres). Than you want to change ownership of
> whole database to another user (i.e. alice), but only this database, not
> all other objects in all other databases.
Actually, it skips al
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Teodor Sigaev writes:
> >> So basically, a generic CASCADE facility sounds like a lot of work to
> >> produce something that would seldom be anything but a foot-gun.
>
> > DELETE FROM or TRUNCATE could be a foot-gun too, but it's not a reason
>
> 15 февр. 2016 г., в 19:25, Tom Lane написал(а):
>
> Teodor Sigaev writes:
>>> So basically, a generic CASCADE facility sounds like a lot of work to
>>> produce something that would seldom be anything but a foot-gun.
>
>> DELETE FROM or TRUNCATE could be a foot-gun too, but it's not a reason
Teodor Sigaev writes:
>> So basically, a generic CASCADE facility sounds like a lot of work to
>> produce something that would seldom be anything but a foot-gun.
> DELETE FROM or TRUNCATE could be a foot-gun too, but it's not a reason to
> remove tham. I faced with problem when I tried to chang
TBH, this sounds like a completely terrible idea. There are far too many
sorts of dependencies across which one would not expect ownership to
propagate; for example, use of a function in a view, or even just a
foreign key dependency between two tables.
I'm not even clear that there are *any* cas
> Dmitry Ivanov writes:
> > As of now there's no way to transfer the ownership of an object and all
> > its
> > dependent objects in one step. One has to manually alter the owner of each
> > object, be it a table, a schema or something else.
>
> TBH, this sounds like a completely terrible idea.
Dmitry Ivanov writes:
> As of now there's no way to transfer the ownership of an object and all its
> dependent objects in one step. One has to manually alter the owner of each
> object, be it a table, a schema or something else.
TBH, this sounds like a completely terrible idea. There are far
Hi hackers,
Recently I've been working on a CASCADE option for ALTER ... OWNER TO
statement. Although it's still a working prototype, I think it's time to share
my work.
Introduction
As of now there's no way to transfer the ownership of an object and all its
dependent objects in
10 matches
Mail list logo