Re: Some coverage for DROP OWNED BY with pg_default_acl

2021-01-19 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 05:49:03PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Heh, interesting case. Added coverage is good, so +1. Thanks. I read through it again and applied the test. > Since the role regress_priv_user2 is "private" to the privileges.sql > script, there's no danger of a concurrent test g

Re: Some coverage for DROP OWNED BY with pg_default_acl

2021-01-19 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On 2021-Jan-19, Michael Paquier wrote: > And while reviewing the thing, I have spotted that there is a specific > path for pg_default_acl in RemoveRoleFromObjectACL() that has zero > coverage. This can be triggered with DROP OWNED BY, and it is > actually safe to run as long as this is done in a

Some coverage for DROP OWNED BY with pg_default_acl

2021-01-19 Thread Michael Paquier
Hi all, I was looking again at the thread that reported a problem when using ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES with duplicated object names: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ae2a7dc1-9d71-8cba-3bb9-e4cb7eb1f...@hot.ee And while reviewing the thing, I have spotted that there is a specific path for pg_