From 74c877e8db23df20004f80dd11e383da8cc187a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom Lane Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:32:50 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Don't record FDW user mappings as members of extensions. CreateUserMapping has a recordDependencyOnCurrentExtension call that's been there since extensions were introduced (very possibly my fault). However, there's no support anywhere else for user mappings as members of extensions, nor are they listed as a possible member object type in the documentation. Nor does it really seem like a good idea for user mappings to belong to extensions when roles don't. Hence, remove the bogus call. (As we saw in bug #15310, the lack of any pg_dump support for this case ensures that any such membership record would silently disappear during pg_upgrade. So there's probably no need for us to do anything else about cleaning up after this mistake.) Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/27952.1533667213@sss.pgh.pa.us --- src/backend/commands/foreigncmds.c | 8 ++++++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/foreigncmds.c b/src/backend/commands/foreigncmds.c index cc912b2a79..a19d6e002a 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/foreigncmds.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/foreigncmds.c @@ -1212,8 +1212,12 @@ CreateUserMapping(CreateUserMappingStmt *stmt) recordDependencyOnOwner(UserMappingRelationId, umId, useId); } - /* dependency on extension */ - recordDependencyOnCurrentExtension(&myself, false); + /* + * Perhaps someday there should be a recordDependencyOnCurrentExtension + * call here; but since roles aren't members of extensions, it seems like + * user mappings shouldn't be either. Note that the grammar and pg_dump + * would need to be extended too if we change this. + */ /* Post creation hook for new user mapping */ InvokeObjectPostCreateHook(UserMappingRelationId, umId, 0); -- 2.50.1