On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 13:33:07 +0900
Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2025/06/11 11:49, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > While looking at the thread [1], I've remembered this thread.
> > The patches in this thread are partially v18-related, but include
> > enhancement or fixes for existing feature, so should th
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 13:33:07 +0900
Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2025/06/11 11:49, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > While looking at the thread [1], I've remembered this thread.
> > The patches in this thread are partially v18-related, but include
> > enhancement or fixes for existing feature, so should th
On 2025/06/11 11:49, Yugo Nagata wrote:
While looking at the thread [1], I've remembered this thread.
The patches in this thread are partially v18-related, but include
enhancement or fixes for existing feature, so should they be postponed
to v19, or should be separated properly to v18 part and
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 12:28:57 +0900
Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 19:18:11 +0900
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 2025/04/04 0:21, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > > Thanks for updating the patch!
> > >
> > > If there are no objections, I'll proceed with committing it using the
> > > fol
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 19:18:11 +0900
Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2025/04/04 0:21, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > Thanks for updating the patch!
> >
> > If there are no objections, I'll proceed with committing it using the
> > following commit log.
>
> I've pushed the patch. Thanks!
Thank you!
> Whi
On 2025/04/04 23:47, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 07:18:11PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
I've pushed the patch. Thanks!
Just a heads up, I fixed a pgindent issue in this commit (see commits
e1a8b1ad58 and 742317a80f). I'd ordinarily just report it, but since we're
nearing fe
On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 07:18:11PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> I've pushed the patch. Thanks!
Just a heads up, I fixed a pgindent issue in this commit (see commits
e1a8b1ad58 and 742317a80f). I'd ordinarily just report it, but since we're
nearing feature freeze, I just fixed it because my workflo
On 2025/04/04 0:21, Fujii Masao wrote:
Thanks for updating the patch!
If there are no objections, I'll proceed with committing it using the following
commit log.
I've pushed the patch. Thanks!
While testing the feature, I noticed that psql doesn't complete
"ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES GRANT/R
On 2025/04/03 23:04, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 02:35:35 +0900
Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2025/01/23 19:22, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:30:17 +0100
Laurenz Albe wrote:
On Fri, 2024-09-13 at 16:18 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
I've attached a updated patch. The test is
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 02:35:35 +0900
Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2025/01/23 19:22, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:30:17 +0100
> > Laurenz Albe wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 2024-09-13 at 16:18 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> >>> I've attached a updated patch. The test is rewritten using
>
On 2025/01/23 19:22, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:30:17 +0100
Laurenz Albe wrote:
On Fri, 2024-09-13 at 16:18 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
I've attached a updated patch. The test is rewritten using
has_largeobject_privilege()
function instead of calling loread & lowrite, which m
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:30:17 +0100
Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-09-13 at 16:18 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > I've attached a updated patch. The test is rewritten using
> > has_largeobject_privilege()
> > function instead of calling loread & lowrite, which makes the test a bit
> > simpler.
On Fri, 2024-09-13 at 16:18 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> I've attached a updated patch. The test is rewritten using
> has_largeobject_privilege()
> function instead of calling loread & lowrite, which makes the test a bit
> simpler.
> Thare are no other changes.
When I tried to apply this patch, I
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:54:06 +0900
Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:08:39 -0500
> Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 11:47:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > On the whole I find this proposed feature pretty unexciting
> > > and dubiously worthy of the implementation/m
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:23:45 +0200
Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 at 10:54, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:08:39 -0500
> > Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 11:47:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > On the whole I find this proposed f
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 at 10:54, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:08:39 -0500
> Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 11:47:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > On the whole I find this proposed feature pretty unexciting
> > > and dubiously worthy of the implementation/mainte
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:08:39 -0500
Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 11:47:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > On the whole I find this proposed feature pretty unexciting
> > and dubiously worthy of the implementation/maintenance effort.
>
> I don't have any particularly strong feeling
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 11:47:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> On the whole I find this proposed feature pretty unexciting
> and dubiously worthy of the implementation/maintenance effort.
I don't have any particularly strong feelings on $SUBJECT, but I'll admit
I'd be much more interested in resolvin
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 23:47:38 -0400
Tom Lane wrote:
> Yugo NAGATA writes:
> > Currently, ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGE doesn't support large objects,
> > so if we want to allow users other than the owner to use the large
> > object, we need to grant a privilege on it every time a large object
> > is cr
Yugo NAGATA writes:
> Currently, ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGE doesn't support large objects,
> so if we want to allow users other than the owner to use the large
> object, we need to grant a privilege on it every time a large object
> is created. One of our clients feels that this is annoying, so I wou
20 matches
Mail list logo
