Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane [2005-12-29 22:20 -0500]:
>> I think the only real problem here is that the role ends up with
>> NOLOGIN set, which we could probably fix by reordering the commands;
> It will also lead to confusion, especially if the user is not in the
> group wi
Hi!
Tom Lane [2005-12-29 22:20 -0500]:
> Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I recently got a rather interesting Debian bug [1]: When upgrading a
> > pre-8.1 database to 8.1, the upgrade messes up permissions if the old
> > database had users and groups with the same name. Since in 8.1 the
Hi Bruce!
Bruce Momjian [2005-12-29 20:06 -0500]:
> I think we decided that the number of users who have this problem and
> would be using upgraded pg_dumpall to upgrade to 8.1 is too small. (If
> we had realized this problem pre-8.1, it would have been great to have
> fixed it.) In your upgrad
Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I recently got a rather interesting Debian bug [1]: When upgrading a
> pre-8.1 database to 8.1, the upgrade messes up permissions if the old
> database had users and groups with the same name. Since in 8.1 they
> get collapsed to a 'role' there will be a na
Martin Pitt wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> Hi PostgreSQL developers!
>
> I recently got a rather interesting Debian bug [1]: When upgrading a
> pre-8.1 database to 8.1, the upgrade messes up permissions if the old
> database had users and groups with the same name. Since in 8.1 they
> ge
Hi PostgreSQL developers!
I recently got a rather interesting Debian bug [1]: When upgrading a
pre-8.1 database to 8.1, the upgrade messes up permissions if the old
database had users and groups with the same name. Since in 8.1 they
get collapsed to a 'role' there will be a name clash.
My current
