Tom Lane wrote:
> This does not surprise me; the original code was just plain buggy.
> I suspect it is applying some completely inappropriate check (like
> checking some other permission bit than UPDATE), so that the apparently
> correct failure is really coincidental, and it still fails when it
> should succeed. Unfortunately I don't have a running copy of 7.3.2 to
> trace through ...
I saw something similar the other day on my copy of 7.3.2. I'll try to
work through this, but it may be the weekend before I have time to
really dig in.
Joe