From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Extend ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES for large objects
In-reply-to: <20240424115242.236b499b2bed5b7a27f7a418@sraoss.co.jp>
References: <20240424115242.236b499b2bed5b7a27f7a418@sraoss.co.jp>
Comments: In-reply-to Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
	message dated "Wed, 24 Apr 2024 11:52:42 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3602390.1713930458.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 23:47:38 -0400
Message-ID: <3602391.1713930458@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3602391.1713930458%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
> Currently, ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGE doesn't support large objects,
> so if we want to allow users other than the owner to use the large
> object, we need to grant a privilege on it every time a large object
> is created. One of our clients feels that this is annoying, so I would
> like propose to extend  ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGE to large objects. 

I wonder how this plays with pg_dump, and in particular whether it
breaks the optimizations that a45c78e32 installed for large numbers
of large objects.  The added test cases seem to go out of their way
to leave no trace behind that the pg_dump/pg_upgrade tests might
encounter.

I think you broke psql's \ddp, too.  And some other places; grepping
for DEFACLOBJ_NAMESPACE finds other oversights.

On the whole I find this proposed feature pretty unexciting
and dubiously worthy of the implementation/maintenance effort.

			regards, tom lane