Skip to main content
added 61 characters in body
Source Link
Paulo
  • 161
  • 1
  • 3

Be warned: I'm relatively new to PostgreSQL and so I'm not sure if this is a good practice or not, but one...

One way I can think this can be addressed is by executing a REASSIGN OWNED statement at the end of the process that has created all your objects in the database, like this:

REASSIGN OWNED BY CURRENT_USER TO ink;

This way, even if the tables are momentarily owned by the postgres user, you'll see them owned by ink once the creation process ends.

I'm not sure if this is a good practice or not, but one way I can think this can be addressed is by executing a REASSIGN OWNED statement at the end of the process that has created all your objects in the database, like this:

REASSIGN OWNED BY CURRENT_USER TO ink;

This way, even if the tables are momentarily owned by the postgres user, you'll see them owned by ink once the creation process ends.

Be warned: I'm relatively new to PostgreSQL and so I'm not sure if this is a good practice or not, but...

One way I can think this can be addressed is by executing a REASSIGN OWNED statement at the end of the process that has created all your objects in the database, like this:

REASSIGN OWNED BY CURRENT_USER TO ink;

This way, even if the tables are momentarily owned by the postgres user, you'll see them owned by ink once the creation process ends.

Source Link
Paulo
  • 161
  • 1
  • 3

I'm not sure if this is a good practice or not, but one way I can think this can be addressed is by executing a REASSIGN OWNED statement at the end of the process that has created all your objects in the database, like this:

REASSIGN OWNED BY CURRENT_USER TO ink;

This way, even if the tables are momentarily owned by the postgres user, you'll see them owned by ink once the creation process ends.