On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:12:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:35:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think you're misjudging the core of the issue. The same thing
> >> would happen if somebody dropped and recreated the public schema.
> >> Or anything else that we create at initdb time but allow to be
> >> dropped.
>
> > I just tested dropping and recreating the 'public' schema and pg_upgrade
> > worked fine.
>
> Did it restore the nonstandard ownership of the schema? Your proposed
> fix for plpgsql won't preserve the previous state of the extension.
> (Maybe we don't care, but it needs consideration.)
My point was that drop/create of the public schema does not generate a
pg_upgrade error like plpgsql does.
Let me address the schema question here and the plpgsql issue in the
next email.
> Did it restore the nonstandard ownership of the schema?
No --- drop/create of the public schema produces:
test=> \dn+
List of schemas
Name | Owner | Access privileges | Description
--------+----------+-------------------+-------------
public | postgres | |
(1 row)
while the original shipped public and the post-upgrade of a drop/created
schema are:
test=> \dn+
List of schemas
Name | Owner | Access privileges | Description
--------+----------+----------------------+------------------------
public | postgres | postgres=UC/postgres+| standard public schema
| | =UC/postgres |
(1 row)
However, surprisingly, a simple pg_dump/restore also does not preserve
the public schema permissions either. :-(
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
