From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION vs ownership |
Date: | 2009-10-02 00:57:18 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070910011757x22ebf5abh443872e1f81aeec2@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
<euler(at)timbira(dot)com> wrote:
> David E. Wheeler escreveu:
>> On Oct 1, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> My inclination is to think that the right behavior for REPLACE FUNCTION
>>> is to keep the old proowner and proacl values, because that's what it
>>> always has done and nobody's complained. But I suppose a case could
>>> be made that you're completely replacing the function and so you should
>>> replace its ownership/permissions too. The CREATE FUNCTION reference
>>> page fails to specify either way, which is a documentation bug as well.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>> The latter, I think. If I replace a function, I should be the new owner.
>> To me it makes no sense for someone else to own it.
>>
> Hmm... Using the same logic, if I add a new column should I be the table
> owner? If you're changing the function that is because you have permission.
>
> IMHO the owner should be preserved. In my mind, REPLACE is for changing the
> content and not the properties (name, owner, etc).
I disagree. I think David has this one right. I expect the results
of CREATE OR REPLACE to be the same as the result of CREATE would have
been had the object not existed.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-10-02 01:18:20 | Re: Limit allocated memory per session |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-10-02 00:55:46 | Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review) |