On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 12:13:56PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 25.11.24 02:24, Noah Misch wrote:
> > commit d31bbfb wrote:
> > > --- a/src/backend/catalog/aclchk.c
> > > +++ b/src/backend/catalog/aclchk.c
> > > @@ -659,147 +659,77 @@ ExecGrantStmt_oids(InternalGrant *istmt)
> > >* objec
On 25.11.24 02:24, Noah Misch wrote:
commit d31bbfb wrote:
--- a/src/backend/catalog/aclchk.c
+++ b/src/backend/catalog/aclchk.c
@@ -659,147 +659,77 @@ ExecGrantStmt_oids(InternalGrant *istmt)
* objectNamesToOids
*
* Turn a list of object names of a given type into an Oid list.
- *
- *
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 11:19:50AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 11.11.24 08:53, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Thanks. I have applied your patch and then also mine with the appropriate
> adjustments.
commit d31bbfb wrote:
> --- a/src/backend/catalog/aclchk.c
> +++ b/src/backend/catalog/aclchk.
On 11.11.24 08:53, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
Maybe it would be better to push the assertion into get_object_address(),
something like
Assert(!relation || relp)
near the end.
That looks like a good idea to me, that would make the code cleaner and easier
to understand.
Meaning, if you pass
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 09, 2024 at 01:43:13PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 31.10.24 15:26, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > + address = get_object_address(objtype, lfirst(cell), &relation, lockmode,
> > false);
> > + Assert(relation == NULL);
> >
> > Worth to explain why we do expect relation to be
On 31.10.24 15:26, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
+ address = get_object_address(objtype, lfirst(cell), &relation, lockmode,
false);
+ Assert(relation == NULL);
Worth to explain why we do expect relation to be NULL here? (the comment on top
of get_object_address() says it all, but maybe a few words
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 04:20:42PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> This patch started out as a refactoring, thinking that objectNamesToOids()
> in aclchk.c should really mostly be a loop around get_object_address().
> This is mostly true, with a few special cases because the node
> representa
.
Also, it would be worth thinking about what the correct lock mode should
be here.
From fb910c6af0fb0691448680ec4a4cc1eb1857cd5b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 16:07:01 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Proper object locking for GRANT/REVOKE
Refactor objectNamesToOids
