On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:29:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Mark Styles <postgres@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:46:08AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I guess the interesting question to me is what happened to the tables > >> those toast tables are/were attached to? They should have the same > >> owners as their parent tables. > > > They did have the same owner, I changed the owner to postgres so I could > > drop the role, but the corresponding pg_toast tables did not change. > > Well, that's just weird. Can you reproduce such a behavior? In my > tests 8.1 definitely does change the toast table's owner along with the > parent. One can imagine that step failing, but if so the whole > ALTER OWNER transaction should roll back. Actually, pgadmin3 may have given me an error on that operation (which I ignored, it did what I wanted, I thought), I believe it was something like 'OID not found'. I have to do something similar for another role so I'll pay more attention then. > As for getting out of your immediate problem, I think what you'd need to > do is manually adjust the pg_class.relowner fields for those toast > tables, and then get rid of the pg_shdepend entries that claim they > depend on the old role. (You don't need to put back new entries > claiming they depend on postgres.) But I'd sure like to find out what > happened. We've heard a few reports before of toast tables not getting > dropped when their parents were, and I wonder if this is related. Thanks, I managed to clear out the offending dependencies. relowner was actually set correctly, but the pg_shdepend records were wrong. -- Mark http://www.lambic.co.uk
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
