Re: [HACKERS] DROP OWNED BY ... CACADE & "could not open relation with OID" error

2016-07-20 Thread Satoshi Nagayasu
2016-07-21 13:53 GMT+09:00 Alvaro Herrera : > Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have been trying MADlib [1], a machine-learning library for PostgreSQL, >> and when I was tying it on 9.5 and 9.6beta2, I often got following >> error on my box. >> >> >> madpac

Re: [HACKERS] DROP OWNED BY ... CACADE & "could not open relation with OID" error

2016-07-20 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > Hi, > > I have been trying MADlib [1], a machine-learning library for PostgreSQL, > and when I was tying it on 9.5 and 9.6beta2, I often got following > error on my box. > > > madpack.py : ERROR : SQL command failed: > SQL: DROP OWNED

[HACKERS] DROP OWNED BY ... CACADE & "could not open relation with OID" error

2016-07-20 Thread Satoshi Nagayasu
Hi, I have been trying MADlib [1], a machine-learning library for PostgreSQL, and when I was tying it on 9.5 and 9.6beta2, I often got following error on my box. madpack.py : ERROR : SQL command failed: SQL: DROP OWNED BY madlib_19_installcheck CASCADE; ERROR:

Re: [HACKERS] DROP OWNED BY fails to drop privileges granted by non-owners (was Re: [GENERAL] Bug, Feature, or what else?)

2013-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Adrian Klaver writes: > I am not sure I am following. Are we talking two different cases here? What I was pointing out was that the non-superuser case seems to be broken almost completely, whereas the superuser case is only broken if the object owner has given away some grant options and those ha

[HACKERS] DROP OWNED BY fails to drop privileges granted by non-owners (was Re: [GENERAL] Bug, Feature, or what else?)

2013-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Adrian Klaver writes: > On 02/08/2013 08:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Of course, postgres has other options besides that, of which "DROP OWNED >> BY ak02" is probably the most appropriate here. Or if you really want >> to get rid of just that grant, SET ROLE TO akretschmer01 and revoke. > The DROP

Re: [HACKERS] DROP OWNED BY doesn't work

2006-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
I found one other problem in this area, which was that REASSIGN OWNED didn't work real well either after I changed serial sequences' dependency type to AUTO. What I did about it was to make shdepReassignOwned call ATExecChangeOwner with recursing = true, which suppresses all those tedious error ch

Re: [HACKERS] DROP OWNED BY doesn't work

2006-08-19 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What I'm considering is this: scan pg_shdepend looking for objects to > delete, and save them into a list; but each time we find one, we also > find objects that depend on it. Those dependent objects should be > ignored; but we should also remove from t

Re: [HACKERS] DROP OWNED BY doesn't work

2006-08-19 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > I think a correct solution probably requires making a list of all > objects to delete by scanning pg_shdepend and then starting to > delete 'em, using the list as "oktodelete" context similar to the > way that dependency.c handles auto/internal objects. What I'm considering is t

Re: [HACKERS] DROP OWNED BY doesn't work

2006-08-19 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > I think a correct solution probably requires making a list of all > objects to delete by scanning pg_shdepend and then starting to > delete 'em, using the list as "oktodelete" context similar to the > way that dependency.c handles auto/internal objects. Hum. I'll take a look at

[HACKERS] DROP OWNED BY doesn't work

2006-08-19 Thread Tom Lane
So I was fooling with making serial sequences be auto rather than internal dependencies of their columns, and the regression tests blew up on me: *** ./expected/dependency.out Mon Nov 21 07:49:33 2005 --- ./results/dependency.outSat Aug 19 17:46:55 2006 *** *** 109,113 --- 1

Re: [HACKERS] DROP OWNED BY

2005-08-13 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 10:09:35AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm working on the promised DROP OWNED patch, and just noticed that it > > needs modifications to the Grant/Revoke machinery that are too invasive > > to consider for 8.1; the problem is that

Re: [HACKERS] DROP OWNED BY

2005-08-13 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm working on the promised DROP OWNED patch, and just noticed that it > needs modifications to the Grant/Revoke machinery that are too invasive > to consider for 8.1; the problem is that ExecuteGrantStmt takes textual > names for objects and grantees, a

Re: [HACKERS] DROP OWNED BY

2005-08-12 Thread Marc G. Fournier
Definitely should be released without it ... it is an extension not submitted for inclusion prior to the feature freeze ... On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I'm working on the promised DROP OWNED patch, and just noticed that it needs modifications to the Grant/Revoke machinery that

[HACKERS] DROP OWNED BY

2005-08-12 Thread Alvaro Herrera
I'm working on the promised DROP OWNED patch, and just noticed that it needs modifications to the Grant/Revoke machinery that are too invasive to consider for 8.1; the problem is that ExecuteGrantStmt takes textual names for objects and grantees, and what I have from pg_shdepend are Oids. Dropping