Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> So what's the status of this patch currently?
>
> I'll be reviewing the updates shortly. After that, I'd like a committer
> to review it.
Do you think this version also should rework an invocation of
pg_namespace_aclcheck() n
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> So what's the status of this patch currently?
I'll be reviewing the updates shortly. After that, I'd like a committer
to review it.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > Thanks. To make sure it gets picked up, you might respond to Tom's
>> > message above with this same email. Just a thought.
>>
>> The following message was my reply.
* KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Thanks. To make sure it gets picked up, you might respond to Tom's
> > message above with this same email. Just a thought.
>
> The following message was my reply.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg0
Stephen Frost wrote:
> KaiGai,
>
> * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
>> The attached patch eliminates permission checks in FindConversion()
>> and EnableDisableRule(), because these are nonsense or redundant.
>>
>> It is an separated issue from the ac_*() routines.
>> For now, we decide
Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> I know it doesn't hide existence of major database objects. Depending
>>> on the situation, there might be other information that could be leaked.
>>> I realize that's not the case here, but I still want to catch and
>>> document any behavioral changes, even if it's clear
KaiGai,
* KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
> Yes, it is reasonable both of MAC/DAC to handle temporary schema as
> an exception of access controls on schemas.
Great.
> > I know it doesn't hide existence of major database objects. Depending
> > on the situation, there might be other in
Stephen Frost wrote:
> * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> The scenario you outline could happen without SE-PG, couldn't it?
>>> Specifically, if a user makes a connection, creates a temporary table,
>>> and then their rights to create temporary tables are revok
KaiGai,
* KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
> The attached patch eliminates permission checks in FindConversion()
> and EnableDisableRule(), because these are nonsense or redundant.
>
> It is an separated issue from the ac_*() routines.
> For now, we decided not to touch these stuffs in
* KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > The scenario you outline could happen without SE-PG, couldn't it?
> > Specifically, if a user makes a connection, creates a temporary table,
> > and then their rights to create temporary tables are revoked? What
> > should hap
> I don't find the comment regarding what happened with FindConversion to
> be nearly descriptive enough. Can you elaborate on why the check wasn't
> necessary and has now been removed? If it really isn't needed, why have
> that function at all?
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/
Stephen Frost wrote:
> * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@kaigai.gr.jp) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost wrote:
You might also provide a specific example of where and why this check
matters. I'm not entirely convinced it's necessary or makes sense, to
be honest..
>> By the default, it is 100% correct to
* KaiGai Kohei (kai...@kaigai.gr.jp) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> You might also provide a specific example of where and why this check
> >> matters. I'm not entirely convinced it's necessary or makes sense, to
> >> be honest..
>
> By the default, it is 100% correct to omit checks here.
>
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
>> Could you post any review comments, even if it is not comprehensive yet?
>
> In general, you don't need to preface your comments with 'MEMO:'. I
> would encourage removing that. You might use
Stephen, thanks for your comments.
Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
>> >> Could you post any review comments, even if it is not comprehensive yet?
>>
>> In general, you don't need to preface your comments with 'MEMO:'. I
>> would encourage removing that. You m
* KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
> Could you post any review comments, even if it is not comprehensive yet?
In general, you don't need to preface your comments with 'MEMO:'. I
would encourage removing that. You might use 'FIXME:' instead, if it is
something which needs to be correcte
Stephen Frost wrote:
> * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
>> BTW, I raised a few issues. Do you have any opinions?
>
> Certainly, though they're my opinions and I don't know if the committers
> will agree, but I suspect they will.
Thanks for your comments.
>> * deployment of the source
* KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
> BTW, I raised a few issues. Do you have any opinions?
Certainly, though they're my opinions and I don't know if the committers
will agree, but I suspect they will.
> * deployment of the source code
>
> The current patch implements all the access con
2009/9/24 KaiGai Kohei :
> I noticed that the previous patch (r2311) fails to apply on the CVS HEAD.
> The attached patch is only rebased to the latest CVS HEAD, without any
> other changes.
Stephen,
Are you planning to post a review for this? We are 12 days into the
CommitFest so we need to giv
19 matches
Mail list logo
