It was written and never called — dropPostgresRole had zero call sites, so deleting a
member left their role and databases on the cluster.
That is the uid trap in a different id space, and worse. provisionPostgresRole ADOPTS
an existing role, so a role left behind is inherited whole, with its databases, by the
next member who gets the same username. useradd hands out the lowest free uid by
accident; the owner hands out usernames on purpose, so reuse is likelier here, not
less.
Rewritten to PRESERVE rather than destroy. The first version dropped the databases,
which is inconsistent with severMemberTree three files away — that chowns a member's
files to the service user rather than deleting them, and a database is the same kind
of thing. The owner removing an account has not necessarily asked to destroy the work
in it, and dropping is the one choice that cannot be walked back.
Needs the full idiom, per database, and both halves matter:
ALTER DATABASE .. OWNER TO REASSIGN OWNED does not move database ownership
REASSIGN OWNED BY .. TO .. moves tables, schemas, functions
DROP OWNED BY .. removes what is left, which after a reassign is
only the GRANTS — without it DROP ROLE still
refuses, an ACL entry is a dependency too
Both statements act only on the database they are connected to, so it is a connection
per database rather than a loop over `db`.
Ordered after the Linux teardown (which can fail and abort, and must not do so after
something irreversible) and before deleteUser (the row is what remembers there is
anything to clean up).
Verified live: a member with a database, a table, a row and a schema. Naive DROP ROLE
refused with "2 objects in database carol_app". After the sequence: role gone, row
intact, table owned by postgres. Then recreated the same username and confirmed she is
REFUSED from the old database — the login trigger holds because ownership moved.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
pastilhasandClaude Opus 5
2ac58e2007