Re: Extend ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES for large objects

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>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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