Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 16:11:59 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Jacob Champion <champion.p@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
	Akshat Jaimini <destrex271@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump needs SELECT privileges on irrelevant extension table
Message-ID: <ZTA8D6w8Pg3T80CS@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <00d46a48-3324-d9a0-49bf-e7f0f11d1038@timescale.com>
 <954419.1679334206@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <eed220a4-c7f3-2164-02f2-b42783694221@timescale.com>
 <a185f66f-1edc-426e-41a4-091dad230c75@dunslane.net>
 <CAAWbhmjsm+bJrwC1eTGpGk+6MQFG_1vA2g1+Fqa0xE78v1Xncg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAWbhmi+fu6Aiucjf76Ss2GPEijrz6VLriby1LaG=p9zNTOxZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2905669.1697573572@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <2984517.1697577076@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2s+qH8c4uKhmLGt6"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2984517.1697577076@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.1.4 (2021-12-11)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZTA8D6w8Pg3T80CS%40tamriel.snowman.net>
Precedence: bulk


--2s+qH8c4uKhmLGt6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Why are we marking extension member objects as being subject to SECLABEL
> > or POLICY dumping?  As the comment notes, that isn't really sensible
> > unless what we are dumping is a delta from the extension's initial
> > assignments.  But we have no infrastructure for that, and none seems
> > likely to appear in the near future.
>=20
> Here's a quick patch that does it that way.  The test changes
> are identical to Jacob's v3-0001.

What the comment is talking about is that we don't support initial
policies, not that we don't support policies on extension tables at all.
That said ... even the claim that we don't support such policies isn't
supported by code and there are people out there doing it, which creates
its own set of problems (ones we should really try to find solutions to
though..).

This change would mean that policies added by a user after the extension
is created would just be lost by a pg_dump/reload, doesn't it?

Thanks,

Stephen

--2s+qH8c4uKhmLGt6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=7rPd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--2s+qH8c4uKhmLGt6--