On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 1:27 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> That's pretty broken, isn't it? joe would own the multirange if he'd
> created the range to start with. Even if you think the ownerships
> ideally should be separable, this behavior causes existing pg_dump
> files to restore incorrectly, because pg_dump assumes it need not emit
> any commands about the multirange.
I agree that pg_dump doing the wrong thing is bad, but the SQL example
doesn't look broken if you ignore pg_dump. I have a feeling that the
source of the awkwardness here is that one SQL command is creating two
objects, and unlike the case of a table and a TOAST table, one is not
an implementation detail of the other or clearly subordinate to the
other. But how does that prevent us from making pg_dump restore the
ownership and permissions on each separately? If ownership is a
problem, aren't permissions also?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com