Re: DROP OWNED BY fails to clean out pg_init_privs grants
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: DROP OWNED BY fails to clean out pg_init_privs grants |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 32556.1714165429@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: DROP OWNED BY fails to clean out pg_init_privs grants (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>) |
Ответы |
Re: DROP OWNED BY fails to clean out pg_init_privs grants
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes: > On 21 Apr 2024, at 23:08, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> So the meson animals are not running the test that sets up the >> problematic data. > I took a look at this, reading code and the linked thread. My gut feeling is > that Stephen is right in that the underlying bug is these privileges ending up > in pg_init_privs to begin with. That being said, I wasn't able to fix that in > a way that doesn't seem like a terrible hack. Hmm, can't we put the duplicate logic inside recordExtensionInitPriv? Even if these calls need a different result from others, adding a flag parameter seems superior to having N copies of the logic. A bigger problem though is that I think you are addressing the original complaint from the older thread, which while it's a fine thing to fix seems orthogonal to the failure we're seeing in the buildfarm. The buildfarm's problem is not that we're recording incorrect pg_init_privs entries, it's that when we do create such entries we're failing to show their dependency on the grantee role in pg_shdepend. We've missed spotting that so far because it's so seldom that pg_init_privs entries reference any but built-in roles (or at least roles that'd likely outlive the extension). regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: