"James B. Byrne" <byrnejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > If all the elements contained in the standard templates had their > ownerships changed to that of the owner of the new database then my > problem would never have arisen. I do not understand why this is not > the case. Is there a reason why this is so? I don't see why you expect that. Should a non-superuser database owner have the ability to redefine, say, sum(int4)? You might as well just give him superuser privileges. In PG's security model, ownership of a database does *not* automatically confer any privileges with respect to the contained objects. It doesn't really give much at all except the ability to drop or rename the database as a whole. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
