| From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Add regression coverage for REVOKE ADMIN OPTION |
| Date: | 2021-11-16 14:32:15 |
| Message-ID: | 0DE9BC11-13C4-4570-9199-7DD02CCEC055@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Nov 16, 2021, at 6:31 AM, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>
>> On 16 Nov 2021, at 00:58, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> While working on a fix for dangling references to dropped roles in the pg_auth_members.grantor field, I happened to notice we entirely lack regression test coverage of the REVOKE ADMIN OPTION FOR form of the RevokeRoleStmt. I am unaware of any bugs in the current implementation, but future work on roles may benefit if we close the testing gap.
>
> LGTM. Reading this I realized that the GRANTED BY keyword for RevokeRoleStmt
> isn't working as documented, it's not checking the role at all. I've sent a
> diff for that with tests on the relevant thread, but I think it would be a good
> to get this in too to boost coverage.
Thanks for the review!
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2021-11-16 14:41:58 | Re: RecoveryInProgress() has critical side effects |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-11-16 14:31:18 | Re: Add regression coverage for REVOKE ADMIN OPTION |