From: | Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Extend ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES for large objects |
Date: | 2025-01-23 10:22:20 |
Message-ID: | 20250123192220.9bad2b9aec110bf335521276@sraoss.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:30:17 +0100
Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-09-13 at 16:18 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > I've attached a updated patch. The test is rewritten using has_largeobject_privilege()
> > function instead of calling loread & lowrite, which makes the test a bit simpler.
> > Thare are no other changes.
>
> When I tried to apply this patch, I found that it doesn't apply any
> more since commit f391d9dc93 renamed tab-complete.c to tab-complete.in.c.
>
> Attached is a rebased patch.
Thank you for updating the patch!
> I agree that large objects are a feature that should fade out (alas,
> the JDBC driver still uses it for BLOBs). But this patch is not big
> or complicated and is unlikely to create a big maintenance burden.
>
> So I am somewhat for committing it. It works as advertised.
> If you are fine with my rebased patch, I can mark it as "ready for
> committer". If it actually gets committed depends on whether there
> is a committer who thinks it worth the effort or not.
I confirmed the patch and I am fine with it.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2025-01-23 10:26:57 | Re: Wrong security context for deferred triggers? |
Previous Message | Benoit Lobréau | 2025-01-23 10:21:10 | Re: Doc: Move standalone backup section, mention -X argument |