Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-07 Thread Stephen Frost
* Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 7 May 2016 at 16:21, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > > On 7 May 2016 at 16:14, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > > If we don't lock it then we will have a inconsistent

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On 7 May 2016 at 16:21, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > On 7 May 2016 at 16:14, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > If we don't lock it then we will have a inconsistent dump that will > fail > > > > later, if dumped while

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-07 Thread Stephen Frost
* Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 7 May 2016 at 16:14, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > If we don't lock it then we will have a inconsistent dump that will fail > > > later, if dumped while an object is being dropped. > > > Do we want an inconsistent dump? > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On 7 May 2016 at 16:14, Stephen Frost wrote: > > If we don't lock it then we will have a inconsistent dump that will fail > > later, if dumped while an object is being dropped. > > Do we want an inconsistent dump? > > The dump won't be inconsistent, as Tom pointed out. The

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-07 Thread Stephen Frost
Simon, * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 4 May 2016 at 16:45, Tom Lane wrote: > > Why is it that we need to lock a table at all if we're just going to dump > > its ACL? > > We don't, but surely that's the wrong question. I tend to agree with this, however...

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On 4 May 2016 at 16:45, Tom Lane wrote: > Why is it that we need to lock a table at all if we're just going to dump > its ACL? We don't, but surely that's the wrong question. If we don't lock it then we will have a inconsistent dump that will fail later, if dumped while

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-04 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > Stephen Frost writes: > > > Attached patch implements this change to not LOCK the table in cases > > > where we don't need to. I'll push this with my other

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-04 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > Attached patch implements this change to not LOCK the table in cases > > where we don't need to. I'll push this with my other changes to pg_dump > > tomorrow (and I've included it in an updated, complete, set

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-04 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost writes: > Attached patch implements this change to not LOCK the table in cases > where we don't need to. I'll push this with my other changes to pg_dump > tomorrow (and I've included it in an updated, complete, set of patches > sent on the thread where those

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-04 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Seems reasonable otherwise. Attached patch implements this change to not LOCK the table in cases where we don't need to. I'll push this with my other changes to pg_dump tomorrow (and I've included it in an updated, complete, set of patches sent on the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-04 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > - USERMAP > > > Uses pg_options_to_table(), but I don't think that actually uses > > SysCache at all, it's just taking the array provided and builds a > > table out of it, so I think this case is ok. >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-04 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> Why is it that we need to lock a table at all if we're just going to dump >> its ACL? > I think I'm coming around to agree with that, but it seems like it'd be > better to look at each component and say "we

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-04 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Why is it that we need to lock a table at all if we're just going to dump > its ACL? I understand the failure modes that motivate locking when we're > going to dump data or schema, but the ACL is not really subject to that > kind of problem: we are going

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-04 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost writes: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> But in Rushabh's example, he's not doing that. He's trying to do a >> full-database dump of a database that contains one object which the >> dump user has rights to access. Previously, that worked. Now,

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> > There is no such limitation on using pg_dump as a non-superuser. It's >> > always been the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-04 Thread Stephen Frost
Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > There is no such limitation on using pg_dump as a non-superuser. It's > > always been the case that you need to be able to LOCK the table that > > you're dumping.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > There is no such limitation on using pg_dump as a non-superuser. It's > always been the case that you need to be able to LOCK the table that > you're dumping. If you don't have rights to LOCK a certain table then >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-04 Thread Stephen Frost
Rushabh, * Rushabh Lathia (rushabh.lat...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > * Rushabh Lathia (rushabh.lat...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > With commit a9f0e8e5a2e779a888988cb64479a6723f668c84, now pg_dump, use a > > > bitmap > > > to

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-04 Thread Rushabh Lathia
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Rushabh Lathia (rushabh.lat...@gmail.com) wrote: > > With commit a9f0e8e5a2e779a888988cb64479a6723f668c84, now pg_dump, use a > > bitmap > > to represent what to include. With this commit if non-super user is > unable >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-03 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> On 3 May 2016 at 19:04, Rushabh Lathia wrote: >> >> > With commit a9f0e8e5a2e779a888988cb64479a6723f668c84, now pg_dump, use a >> > bitmap >> >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-03 Thread Stephen Frost
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > >> On 3 May 2016 at 19:04, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > >> > >> > With commit

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-03 Thread Stephen Frost
* Rushabh Lathia (rushabh.lat...@gmail.com) wrote: > With commit a9f0e8e5a2e779a888988cb64479a6723f668c84, now pg_dump, use a > bitmap > to represent what to include. With this commit if non-super user is unable > to perform the dump. [...] > pg_dump: [archiver (db)] query was: LOCK TABLE

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-03 Thread Stephen Frost
* Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 3 May 2016 at 19:04, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > > > With commit a9f0e8e5a2e779a888988cb64479a6723f668c84, now pg_dump, use a > > bitmap > > to represent what to include. With this commit if non-super user is unable > > to

Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump broken for non-super user

2016-05-03 Thread Craig Ringer
On 3 May 2016 at 19:04, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > With commit a9f0e8e5a2e779a888988cb64479a6723f668c84, now pg_dump, use a > bitmap > to represent what to include. With this commit if non-super user is unable > to perform the dump. > Hm. I think we need a