Re: Wrong security context for deferred triggers?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Wrong security context for deferred triggers?
Date: 2025-01-23 17:30:48
Message-ID: 201480.1737653448@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> Version 5 of the patch is attached.

Pushed with some cosmetic adjustments, such as tweaking comments.
One perhaps less than cosmetic adjustment is that I removed the
test case involving dropping the role. I didn't think it was
buying much now that we removed the code that was trying to do
something special in that situation. (Perhaps there is an argument
for having some testing of the system's behavior when running as a
dropped role, but I doubt that this is the place to start on that.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2025-01-23 18:21:12 Re: Pre-allocating WAL files
Previous Message Robert Haas 2025-01-23 17:16:34 Re: Eagerly scan all-visible pages to amortize aggressive vacuum