Thread

1. reassign owned to change the ownership for op class and family

   Asko Tiidumaa <asko.tiidumaa@gmail.com> — 2010-07-01T15:19:46Z

   Currently REASSIGN OWNED complains "unexpected classid" for operator
   class and family.
   
   For example,
   
   create two users, user1 and user2
   
   under user1:
   create type oxetype as enum ('oxe1');
   create operator class oxeops
   default for type oxetype using btree as
   function 1 array_lower(anyarray,integer);
   
   and then observe "unexpected classid" error:
   reassign owned by user1 to user2
   
   So I propose a patch that goes against head, and it would be great to
   get it backported to at least 8.3 branch
   
   Comments?
   
   
   Asko Tiidumaa
   ---
   Skype, Sr DBA
   

2. Re: reassign owned to change the ownership for op class and family

   Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2010-07-03T14:13:09Z

   On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Asko Tiidumaa <asko.tiidumaa@gmail.com> wrote:
   > Currently REASSIGN OWNED complains "unexpected classid" for operator
   > class and family.
   >
   > For example,
   >
   > create two users, user1 and user2
   >
   > under user1:
   > create type oxetype as enum ('oxe1');
   > create operator class oxeops
   > default for type oxetype using btree as
   > function 1 array_lower(anyarray,integer);
   >
   > and then observe "unexpected classid" error:
   > reassign owned by user1 to user2
   >
   > So I propose a patch that goes against head, and it would be great to
   > get it backported to at least 8.3 branch
   >
   > Comments?
   
   Committed, with minor adjustments.  This is actually against 8.3; it
   needs to use the new syscache macros in head (which I did).
   
   http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-02/msg00174.php
   
   I wonder if we should think about back-patching just the syscache.h
   portion of that patch.  It would simplify back-patching, and might
   make life easier for people trying to write extensions that are
   compatible with multiple PG versions, too.
   
   -- 
   Robert Haas
   EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
   The Enterprise Postgres Company
   
   

3. Re: reassign owned to change the ownership for op class and family

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2010-07-03T15:47:53Z

   Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
   > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-02/msg00174.php
   
   > I wonder if we should think about back-patching just the syscache.h
   > portion of that patch.  It would simplify back-patching, and might
   > make life easier for people trying to write extensions that are
   > compatible with multiple PG versions, too.
   
   Not sure.  Maybe it will make back-patching a bit easier, but we don't
   normally consider back-patching cosmetic changes, which is what this
   really is.
   
   I don't buy the suggestion that third-party extensions would be able
   to rely on it across versions.  They can't know if they're going to be
   compiled against the latest minor release or not.  So it's just a
   question of whether it'll improve matters enough for our own
   back-patches.
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

4. Re: reassign owned to change the ownership for op class and family

   Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2010-07-04T02:37:28Z

   On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
   > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
   >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-02/msg00174.php
   >
   >> I wonder if we should think about back-patching just the syscache.h
   >> portion of that patch.  It would simplify back-patching, and might
   >> make life easier for people trying to write extensions that are
   >> compatible with multiple PG versions, too.
   >
   > Not sure.  Maybe it will make back-patching a bit easier, but we don't
   > normally consider back-patching cosmetic changes, which is what this
   > really is.
   >
   > I don't buy the suggestion that third-party extensions would be able
   > to rely on it across versions.  They can't know if they're going to be
   > compiled against the latest minor release or not.  So it's just a
   > question of whether it'll improve matters enough for our own
   > back-patches.
   
   Well, you could make all the same arguments about backpatching
   hstore(text, text) which you advocated, and we did, not long ago.
   
   I don't actually feel terribly strongly about it; I just thought I'd
   run it up the flagpole and see if anyone saluted.  The day of
   reckoning will come if and when we commit the patch to change
   syscaches to 5 keys.  At that point extension authors are going to
   have a real pain in the ass on their hands.
   
   -- 
   Robert Haas
   EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
   The Enterprise Postgres Company