On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 01:59:00PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Pascal Meunier wrote: > >Thanks for answering; I appreciate it, as well as the efforts of all the > >people who contributed to this database that I now use in my projects. > > > >However, I feel that making a decision based on the number of prior and > >possible future complaints is a poor excuse to not do the right thing. A > >low number of prior complaints simply suggests lax security audits of > >default behaviors. > > > > > At the very least we would need a way of getting the current behaviour, > if we are not to break existing applications. > > People have a reasonable expectation that a dump and reload will work, > and that can't be dismissed as cavalierly as this. > > Maybe a config file option would do the trick, or maybe an option to > pg_dump / pg_dumpall to make it generate the extra GRANT statement that > would be required.
This pg_dump issue keeps biting us in the rear... I think at the very least we should have a means for a dump file to tell the backend that it's about to process a dump file generated by version XYZ. That at least gives us the ability to handle prior version incompatibilites. -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
