-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[YSQL] Import pg_dump: label INDEX ATTACH ArchiveEntries with an owner. #7499
Comments
tedyu
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 18, 2021
…an owner. Summary: Commit was 9f15188a1b822fafa59ca2b022a876fde0a175b8 Commit message was: ``` Although a partitioned index's attachment to its parent doesn't have separate ownership, the ArchiveEntry for it needs to be marked with an owner anyway, to ensure that the ALTER command is run by the appropriate role when restoring with --use-set-session-authorization. Without this, the ALTER will be run by the role that started the restore session, which will usually work but it's formally the wrong thing. Back-patch to v11 where this type of ArchiveEntry was added. In HEAD, add equivalent commentary to the just-added TABLE ATTACH case, which I'd made do the right thing already. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1094034.1610418498@sss.pgh.pa.us ``` Test Plan: Build yugabyte DB and run test suite via Jenkins Reviewers: jason Reviewed By: jason Subscribers: dsrinivasan, yql Differential Revision: https://phabricator.dev.yugabyte.com/D10975
YintongMa
pushed a commit
to YintongMa/yugabyte-db
that referenced
this issue
May 26, 2021
…es with an owner. Summary: Commit was 9f15188a1b822fafa59ca2b022a876fde0a175b8 Commit message was: ``` Although a partitioned index's attachment to its parent doesn't have separate ownership, the ArchiveEntry for it needs to be marked with an owner anyway, to ensure that the ALTER command is run by the appropriate role when restoring with --use-set-session-authorization. Without this, the ALTER will be run by the role that started the restore session, which will usually work but it's formally the wrong thing. Back-patch to v11 where this type of ArchiveEntry was added. In HEAD, add equivalent commentary to the just-added TABLE ATTACH case, which I'd made do the right thing already. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1094034.1610418498@sss.pgh.pa.us ``` Test Plan: Build yugabyte DB and run test suite via Jenkins Reviewers: jason Reviewed By: jason Subscribers: dsrinivasan, yql Differential Revision: https://phabricator.dev.yugabyte.com/D10975
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Commit was 9f15188a1b822fafa59ca2b022a876fde0a175b8
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: