| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ExecutorCheckPerms() hook |
| Date: | 2010-05-25 03:25:58 |
| Message-ID: | 16779.1274757958@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> ... 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.
FWIW, we've shifted COPY more towards using executor support over the
years. I'm pretty sure that it didn't originally use the executor's
index-entry-insertion infrastructure, for instance.
Building an RT entry seems like a perfectly sane thing to do in order
to make it use the executor's permissions infrastructure.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-05-25 03:35:33 | Re: pg_upgrade docs |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2010-05-25 03:25:18 | Re: (9.1) btree_gist support for searching on "not equals" |