Greetings, * Adrian Klaver (adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On 02/13/2017 06:04 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >* Adrian Klaver (adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >>I am following this up to the point of not understanding what > >>exactly changed between 9.5 and 9.6. Namely 9.5 does include the > >>default ACL's in the dump output and 9.6 does not. > > > >Quite a bit in pg_dump changed, but the relevant bit here is that we now > >try to include in the pg_dump output any ACLs which have been changed > >from their initdb-time settings for initdb-time objects. What that > >means is that if you don't change the privileges for the public schema > >from what they're set to at initdb-time, then we don't dump out any ACL > >commands for the public schema. That ends up being incorrect in '-c' > >mode because we drop the public schema in that mode and recreate it, in > >which case we need to re-implement the ACLs which existed for the public > >schema at initdb-time. > > Thanks for the explanation in this post and your previous one. If I > am following pg_init_privs is the initial state of objects ACLs and > if that changes then those entries are removed. No, if the object is *dropped* then the entry is removed from pg_init_privs. Otherwise, the entries in pg_init_privs aren't changed. > So would not the > general case be, on recreating an object use the ACLs in > pg_init_privs if they exist otherwise use the ACLs as they exist > wherever they go to on change away from pg_init_privs? pg_init_privs doesn't track the object's name, so this isn't actually possible. Even if we did track the name of the object, I don't think we'd actually want to set the privileges to what they were set to at initdb time. If you drop the public schema and then recreate it, are you really expecting it to get the initdb-time privileges it had..? How would you reconsile that with default privileges (which we don't have for schemas right now, but it's been proposed...). This case is about a pg_dump, which is a very different case in that we want to recreate the state of the system as it existed at the time of the dump. > I gather that > is what you are proposing as a special case for the public schema. > Just wondering why it should not be the general case? Not quite.. This is about what pg_dump does when a -c is used. Unfortunately, it's *already* doing something special with the public schema (if it wasn't, then this wouldn't really be an issue..). This is just about making it do the right thing in that already-existing special-case. Thanks! Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
