Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> > Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > > The non-documentation question is around DROP OWNED. We need to either
> > > have policies dropped by DROP OWNED (well, roles removed, unless it's
> > > the last one, in which case the policy should be dropped), or update the
> > > documentation to reflect that they don't. I had been thinking we'd
> > > fix DROP OWNED to deal with the policies, but if folks feel it's too
> > > late for that kind of a change, then we can simply document it. I don't
> > > believe that's unreasonable for a new feature and we can work to get it
> > > addressed in 9.6.
> >
> > DROP OWNED is documented as a mechanism to help you drop the role, so
> > it should do whatever is needed for that. I don't think documenting the
> > fact that it leaves the user as part of policies is good enough.
>
> We already can't take care of everything with DROP OWNED though, since
> we can't do cross-database queries, and the overall process almost
> certainly requires additional effort (to reassign objects, etc...), so
> while I'd be happier if policies were handled by it, I don't think it's
> as serious of an issue.
Yes, the documentation says to apply a combination of REASSIGN OWNED
plus DROP OWNED to each database. Sure, it's not a single command, but
if you additionally put the burden that the policies must be taken care
of separately, then the whole process is made a little worse.
> Still, I'll get a patch worked up for it and then we can discuss the
> merits of that patch going in to 9.5 now versus just into HEAD.
Cool.
In the past, we've made a bunch of changes to DROP OWNED in order to
deal with object types that caused errors, even in minor releases. I
think this is just another case of the same problem.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services