From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Zach Manifold <zachlweaver00@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: DROP ROLE ... REASSIGN OWNED TO ...
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+Tgmoavbii-G1uN9tB=gDFJqwp2W-mVM80NifURWb+mDmFc3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CACLQnSmysDOQEn9HJ+AEXMxQ0KvNg=T3+Emz65jkVSqxXaNcPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+Tgmoavbii-G1uN9tB=gDFJqwp2W-mVM80NifURWb+mDmFc3g@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 24 Apr 2026 20:29:43 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1861859.1777079576.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 21:12:56 -0400
Message-ID: <1861860.1777079576@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1861860.1777079576%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> This would fail if the user to be dropped owned objects in another
> database, but your hypothetical version of DROP ROLE would have that
> issue, too. Even if you couldn't wrap both commands in a single
> transaction -- we have some DDL commands that are like that -- running
> them one after another wouldn't lose much. So I'm just not sure I
> really see the point.

Yeah.  We intentionally separated this functionality because the
expectation is that you'll likely have to do REASSIGN OWNED in
multiple databases before DROP ROLE will succeed.  So I'm not
much in favor of adding a combined command; it will just lead
people to try to do things that won't work.

			regards, tom lane