Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Oops, I just noticed that the fix is very simple in HEAD and 9.3 because
> > we can just add the appropriate case labels to the already existing
> > generic object alter-owner case. But in 9.2, we not only need to add
> > extra cases to cover each object, but we also need to refactor
> > the appropriate AlterOwner routine to work on OID input rather than name
> > only. In other words we need the equivalent of
> > 0c7b9dc7d037c4465227dc2300ff48019feeba37 for each of the text search
> > object types :-(
>
> > Not sure I have the time to do all that right now. Contributions
> > welcome.
>
> Given the lack of complaints to date, maybe fixing it in 9.3/HEAD is
> sufficient. I'd certainly rather see those branches get fixed now,
> and 9.2 later, than nothing happen at all for a long time. It's also
> arguable that back-patching such a large change into 9.2 is more risk
> than the problem is worth.
Patching 9.3 and up only was my first thought, but I then noticed that
the reporter is using 9.2.
I'm not opposed to doing 9.3 right now and older branches later, except
that I'm afraid it'd fall by the wayside and we'd never do it.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services