On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 07:03:33PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:50:17AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > > > Do this: > > > > > > > > CREATE DATABASE test1; > > > > REVOKE CONNECT ON DATABASE test1 FROM PUBLIC; > > > > > > > > Run pg_dumpall. > > > > > > > > In 9.5, this produces > > > > > > > > CREATE DATABASE test1 WITH TEMPLATE = template0 OWNER = peter; > > > > REVOKE ALL ON DATABASE test1 FROM PUBLIC; > > > > REVOKE ALL ON DATABASE test1 FROM peter; > > > > GRANT ALL ON DATABASE test1 TO peter; > > > > GRANT TEMPORARY ON DATABASE test1 TO PUBLIC; > > > > > > > > In 9.6, this produces only > > > > > > > > CREATE DATABASE test1 WITH TEMPLATE = template0 OWNER = peter; > > > > GRANT TEMPORARY ON DATABASE test1 TO PUBLIC; > > > > GRANT ALL ON DATABASE test1 TO peter; > > > > > > > > Note that the REVOKE statements are missing. This does not > > > > correctly recreate the original state. > > > > > > I see what happened here, the query in dumpCreateDB() needs to be > > > adjusted to pull the default information to then pass to > > > buildACLComments(), similar to how the objects handled by pg_dump work. > > > The oversight was in thinking that databases didn't have any default > > > rights granted, which clearly isn't correct. > > > > > > I'll take care of that in the next day or so and add an appropriate > > > regression test. > > > > This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly > > send > > a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent > > status > > update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.ga447...@tornado.leadboat.com > > I've not forgotten about this and have an initial patch, but I'm > considering if I like the way template0/template1 are handled. > Specifically, we don't currently record their initdb-set privileges into > pg_init_privs (unlike all other objects with initial privileges). This > is complicated by the idea that template1 could be dropped/recreated > (ending up with a different OID in the process). > > More to come tomorrow.
This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.ga447...@tornado.leadboat.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
