[DPE-2740] Handle tables ownership #298
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Marcelo Henrique Neppel <marcelo.neppel@canonical.com>
dragomirp
approved these changes
Nov 30, 2023
taurus-forever
approved these changes
Nov 30, 2023
Comment on lines
+318
to
+333
| sql.SQL( | ||
| """DO $$ | ||
| DECLARE r RECORD; | ||
| BEGIN | ||
| FOR r IN (SELECT statement FROM (SELECT 1 AS index,'ALTER TABLE '|| schemaname || '."' || tablename ||'" OWNER TO {};' AS statement | ||
| FROM pg_tables WHERE NOT schemaname IN ('pg_catalog', 'information_schema') | ||
| UNION SELECT 2 AS index,'ALTER SEQUENCE '|| sequence_schema || '."' || sequence_name ||'" OWNER TO {};' AS statement | ||
| FROM information_schema.sequences WHERE NOT sequence_schema IN ('pg_catalog', 'information_schema') | ||
| UNION SELECT 3 AS index,'ALTER FUNCTION '|| nsp.nspname || '."' || p.proname ||'"('||pg_get_function_identity_arguments(p.oid)||') OWNER TO {};' AS statement | ||
| FROM pg_proc p JOIN pg_namespace nsp ON p.pronamespace = nsp.oid WHERE NOT nsp.nspname IN ('pg_catalog', 'information_schema') | ||
| UNION SELECT 4 AS index,'ALTER VIEW '|| schemaname || '."' || viewname ||'" OWNER TO {};' AS statement | ||
| FROM pg_catalog.pg_views WHERE NOT schemaname IN ('pg_catalog', 'information_schema')) AS statements ORDER BY index) LOOP | ||
| EXECUTE format(r.statement); | ||
| END LOOP; | ||
| END; $$;""" | ||
| ).format( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a bit read-only... and looks crazy... LGTM, but we should think on background about possible simplification here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks Alex. I agree. I created https://warthogs.atlassian.net/browse/DPE-3090 for that.
BON4
pushed a commit
to BON4/postgresql-operator
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 23, 2024
Signed-off-by: Marcelo Henrique Neppel <marcelo.neppel@canonical.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue
Some charms like Discourse-K8S need to have the ownership of the tables and other objects in a database to correctly run its migrations if a database from a previous Discourse installation is used, otherwise it will not complete the migrations and will throw an error. Also, the existing Discourse K8S test was marked as
unstablein the past because that charm was migrated from the legacy to the modern relation interface.Solution
This is a port of canonical/postgresql-k8s-operator#334.
lib/charms/postgresql_k8s/v0/postgresql.pyis copied from the K8S charm.If the relation between PostgreSQL and Discourse K8S (or any other charm), continue with the same behaviour, but after another instance of the charm is related to the PostgreSQL again, requesting the same database, check if there is no other application related and that previously requested the same database. If so, change the ownership of the objects in the database to the new user created for this relation. If there is already another application related to this database, just give permission to the database object, as we are already doing.
I manually tested these changes in a cross-model relation between this charm and Discourse-K8S.