On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote: >> We have two options; If the checker function takes the list of RangeTblEntry, >> it will be comfortable to ExecCheckRTPerms(), but not DoCopy(). Inversely, >> if the checker function takes arguments in my patch, it will be comfortable >> to DoCopy(), but ExecCheckRTPerms(). >> >> In my patch, it takes 6 arguments, but we can reference all of them from >> the given RangeTblEntry. On the other hand, if DoCopy() has to set up >> a pseudo RangeTblEntry to call checker function, it entirely needs to set >> up similar or a bit large number of variables. > > I don't know that it's really all that difficult to set up an RT in > DoCopy or RI_Initial_Check(). In my opinion, those are the strange or > corner cases- not the Executor code, through which all 'regular' DML is > done. It makes me wonder if COPY shouldn't have been implemented using > the Executor instead, but that's, again, a completely separate topic. > It wasn't, but it wants to play like it operates in the same kind of way > as INSERT, so it needs to pick up the slack.
I think this approach is definitely worth investigating. KaiGai, can you please work up what the patch would look like if we do it this way? Thanks, -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
