Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: >> Jeff Janes escribió: >>> I think "reassign owned" should detect that it is being invoked on the >>> internal user (as it does now) but then instead of refusing to run, it >>> should DWIM. >> Hm, so what would you have it do, precisely? >> From the users perspective, I would have it reassign ownership of exactly > those objects which are not "required by the database system", as the error > message puts it. ISTM this is precisely *not* what REASSIGN OWNED should do. Its charter is to reassign all objects owned by the target role, not to second-guess which ones the user meant. I can see the possible value in a tool that would do what you suggest, but I'm wary of sticking that functionality into REASSIGN OWNED. In practice, it seems likely that people who are in this kind of fix would need more fine-grained control than that anyway. Perhaps the right thing is something close to your hack with pg_dump, wherein the tool produces a file of ALTER OWNER commands and then the user can hand-edit that before pulling the trigger. 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
