Re: BUG #13907: Restore materialized view throw permission denied
От | Kevin Grittner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #13907: Restore materialized view throw permission denied |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CACjxUsPUNgVp-VWrcdCDRdupE58TN-GuCfQ_4HJw_Wee1rVa3Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #13907: Restore materialized view throw permission denied (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #13907: Restore materialized view throw permission denied
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 7/25/16 4:09 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >>> I'm planning to apply the attached revision as soon as I get done >>> back-porting it. >> >> I'm thinking of applying something like the attached to fix the >> rest of this bug. > > The reason that ACLs are restored last is that they could contain owner > self-revokes. So anything that you run after the ACLs could fail > because of that. I think a more complete fix would be to split up the > ACL restores into the general part, which you would run right after the > object is restored, and the owner revokes, which you would run last. So you are suggesting that restoring from pg_dump output should generate materialized view data under a different security context than would be used by a REFRESH statement on the source database? Anything you can add to clarify what you mean by "owner self-revokes" and why the security should be different when the matview data is refreshed at the end of the restore should be different from what would happen on the database which was backed up might be helpful. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: