From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alena Rybakina <a(dot)rybakina(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Running the fdw test from the terminal crashes into the core-dump |
Date: | 2024-02-23 22:03:01 |
Message-ID: | 202402232203.u6k7pvhhbqxy@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-Feb-22, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > I propose the attached. (Extra context so that the full paragraph can
> > be read from the comfort of your email program.)
>
> This reads awkwardly to me. I think it'd be better to construct it
> so that DO NOTHING's requirement is stated exactly parallel to the other
> three clause types, more or less as attached.
Sure, that works.
> BTW, if you read it without paying attention to markup, you'll notice
> that we are saying things like
>
> If you specify an insert action, you must have the INSERT
> privilege on the target_table_name.
>
> which is fairly nonsensical: we don't define privileges on the name
> of something.
Hmm, you're right, this is not strictly correct.
> While I've not done anything about that here, I wonder if we shouldn't
> just write "privilege on the target table" without any special markup.
That would work for me.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2024-02-23 22:36:59 | Re: Removing unneeded self joins |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-02-23 22:00:41 | Re: RangeTblEntry jumble omissions |