Tom,
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> No, if you have a nondefault ACL, that will still get applied. This
> >> arrangement would drop comment changes, but I can't get excited about
> >> that; it's certainly far less of an inconvenience in that scenario
> >> than dumping the comment is in non-superuser-restore scenarios.
>
> > That nondefault ACL from the system the pg_dump was run on will get
> > applied *over-top* of whatever the current ACL on the system that the
> > restore is being run on, which may or may not be what's expected.
>
> Fair point, but doesn't it apply equally to non-default ACLs on any
> other system objects? If you tweaked the permissions on say pg_ls_dir(),
> then dump, then tweak them some more, you're going to get uncertain
> results if you load that dump back into this database ... with or without
> --clean, because we certainly aren't going to drop pinned objects.
Yes, that's certainly true, the public schema is the only "special"
animal in this regard and making it less special (and more like
pg_ls_dir()) would definitely be nice.
> I think we could jigger things so that we dump the definition of these
> special quasi-system objects only if their ACLs are not default, but
> it's not clear to me that that's really an improvement in the long run.
> Seems like it's just making them even wartier.
Yeah, that would be worse, I agree.
Thanks!
Stephen