Re: 9.2RC1 wraps this Thursday ...

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I can work on it if you're still swamped. I think it is probably
>>> fixable by treating the view options as attached to the _RETURN rule
>>> instead of the base table in pg_dump's objects. (There is an ALTER VIEW
>>> command to set the security option, no?)
>
>> Yep, we need to emit:
>
>> ALTER VIEW whatever SET (security_barrier = true);
>
>> ...after creating the rule that transforms it into a view. I spent a
>> little time looking at this before lunch and it seems pretty
>> straightforward to exclude the options from the dump of the table: I
>> think we can just have repairViewRuleMultiLoop() to clear ((TableInfo
>> *) table)->reloptions.
>
>> However, that by itself would result in them not getting dumped
>> anywhere, so then I guess we need to add a reloptions field to
>> RuleInfo. repairViewMultiLoop() can then detach the options from the
>> TableInfo object and attach them to the RuleInfo object. Then we can
>> adjust dumpRule() to print an ALTER VIEW command for any attached
>> reloptions. That seems pretty grotty because it kind of flies in the
>> face of the idea that the table and the rule are separate objects, but
>> I don't have a better idea.
>
> Yeah, that sounds about right. You want to do it, or shall I?

If you don't mind dealing with it, that's great. If you'd prefer that
I cleaned up my own mess, I'll take care of it.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company