On 2024/09/26 17:16, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 03:56:11PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
I confirmed the patches are committed in the master branch.
Thank you!
I've updated the commitfest status to "committed".
This patch has been committed as of 4eada203a5a8, and introduced this
block in pg_proc.dat:
{ oid => '4551', descr => 'user privilege on large objct by username, large
object oid',
proname => 'has_largeobject_privilege', procost => '10', provolatile => 's',
prorettype => 'bool', proargtypes => 'name oid text',
prosrc => 'has_largeobject_privilege_name_id' },
{ oid => '4552', descr => 'current privilege on large objct by large object
oid',
proname => 'has_largeobject_privilege', procost => '10', provolatile => 's',
prorettype => 'bool', proargtypes => 'oid text',
prosrc => 'has_largeobject_privilege_id' },
{ oid => '4553', descr => 'user privilege on large objct by user oid, large
object oid',
proname => 'has_largeobject_privilege', procost => '10', provolatile => 's',
prorettype => 'bool', proargtypes => 'oid oid text',
prosrc => 'has_largeobject_privilege_id_id' },
This has a couple of mistakes:
- New functions introduced during a development cycle should use OIDs in
the range 8000-9999. See 98eab30b93d5, consisting of running
./unused_oids to get a random range.
- The function descriptions are inconsistent and have the three same
typos:
-- s/large objct/large object/.
-- s/current privilege/current user privilege/ for the second entry.
I agree these issues need to be fixed. Thanks for the patch!
And while that's not mandatory for committers, I would apply a
reformat-dat-files while on it, to reduce some diffs I'm seeing.
Yes, that sounds better.
This results in the attached that I'd like to apply to fix all that. It
needs a catalog version bump, of course.
So, are you planning to commit the patch? If not, I'm happy to handle it!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
