From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: table partitioning and access privileges |
Date: | 2020-02-07 01:39:52 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqEkiApF9ieeHJigYTohmjmjLR5SB6-i3FbOQnLSUy8Ezg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:16 AM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2020/02/03 14:26, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 2:07 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> >> On 2020/02/03 11:05, Amit Langote wrote:
> >>> Okay. How about the attached?
> >>
> >> Thanks for the patches! You added the note just after the description
> >> about row level security on inherited table, but isn't it better to
> >> add it before that? Attached patch does that. Thought?
> >
> > Yeah, that might be a better flow for that paragraph.
>
> Pushed! Thanks!
Thank you.
> >>> Maybe, we should also note the LOCK TABLE exception?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> > Note that, unlike TRUNCATE, LOCK TABLE exception exists in HEAD too,
> > but maybe you're aware of that.
>
> Yes, so I will review your patch getting rid of
> LOCK TABLE exception.
Attached updated patch.
Regards,
Amit
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-0001-Don-t-check-child-s-LOCK-privilege-when-locked-re.patch | text/plain | 6.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-02-07 01:55:30 | Re: pgsql: Prevent running pg_basebackup as root |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-02-07 00:37:55 | Re: Getting rid of some more lseek() calls |