Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1015355921.31794.26.camel@jiro обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: ALTER TABLE OWNER: change indexes
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 01:50, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > OK, the issue with this patch is that it fixes ownership of INDEXES. > > > > I thought the resubmitted patch did no such thing? That's correct. > > > Now, we are we going with this? Can we just remove ownership of indexes > > > totally? And sequences? > > > > How did you get from indexes to sequences? The issues are completely > > different. > > The poster mentioned it. What does it matter? I am asking. I think ownership is still valid for sequences (after I asked about it, I thought about it some more -- sequences can be used by multiple tables, and their ownership is actually used by the system). > > I'm in favor of considering that indexes and toast tables have no > > separate ownership, and storing zero in pg_class.relowner for them. > > However, I have not looked to see what this might break. It might > > be more trouble than it's worth. > > Well, before we reject this patch, we should decide what we are going to > do. Of course, indexes are still in pg_class, and putting zero in there > for a user could be trouble. It may be easier to just apply the patch. Well, the latest version of "the patch" doesn't do much -- it just refactors the code involved, there is no change in functionality (I removed the ownership-changing code on Tom's request). Please apply it -- it's quite uncontroversial. If at some later date we decide to apply the additional ownership changing code, that's simple to do. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com> PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: