On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 2:02 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2023-Feb-15, Peter Smith wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 8:55 PM Ajin Cherian <itsa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 11:41 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 3. ExecuteGrantStmt > > > > > > > > + /* Copy the grantor id needed for DDL deparsing of Grant */ > > > > + istmt.grantor_uid = grantor; > > > > > > > > SUGGESTION (comment) > > > > Copy the grantor id to the parsetree, needed for DDL deparsing of Grant > > > > > > didn't change this, as Alvaro said this was not a parsetree. > > > > Perhaps there is more to do here? Sorry, I did not understand the > > details of Alvaro's post [1], but I did not recognize the difference > > between ExecuteGrantStmt and ExecSecLabelStmt so it was my impression > > either one or both of these places are either wrongly commented, or > > maybe are doing something that should not be done. > > These two cases are different. In ExecGrantStmt we're adding the > grantor OID to the InternalGrant struct, which is not a parse node, so > there's no strong reason not to modify it (and also the suggested > comment change is factually wrong). I don't know if the idea is great, > but at least I see no strong objection. > > In the other case, as I said in [1], the patch proposes to edit the > parse node to add the grantor, but I think a better idea might be to > change the signature to > ExecSecLabelStmt(SecLabelStmt *stmt, ObjectAddress *provider) so that > the function can set the provider there; and caller passes > &secondaryObject, which is the method we adopted for this kind of thing. >
+1, that is a better approach to make the required change in ExecSecLabelStmt(). -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
