dalibo
fallback_owner
I think this is related to issue 421. We were hoping that fallback_owner could be used to have all objects owned by role being dropped be reassigned to fallback_owner instead of postgres.
However, it seems that even though we have fallback_owner defined in our yml syntax under the postgres directive - all objects and databases owned by role to be dropped are reassigned to postgres before dropping.
What is the point of fallback_owner?
Is there a way to specify who should own objects of role being dropped?
Ok - so fallback_owner only works if the database is owned by the role being dropped - I just confirmed that it also reassigns objects properly in that database to fallback_owner.
In our case the database is owned by postgres - but objects inside it are being owned by role being dropped. We wanted to reassign those to an account like "orphan_owner" so they could easily be reviewed later and most likely dropped. It would be easier to identify those objects that were reassigned if they are owned by a different user then postgres.
In our case the database is owned by postgres - but objects inside it are being owned by role being dropped. We wanted to reassign those to an account like "orphan_owner" so they could easily be reviewed later and most likely dropped. It would be easier to identify those objects that were reassigned if they are owned by a different user then postgres.
There may be a hack: postgres:schemas_query allows you to return schema name and owner. This owner is the role who'll inherite orphaned objects. You may use something like:
postgres:
schemas_query: |
SELECt nspname, 'orphan_owner' FROM pg_namespace;
Please share what you find.
This didn't seem to make a difference. Does it work with v5.9?
This behaviour changed in 6.0. I'm not sure about the previous behaviour, this need more testing.