Re: ExecRTCheckPerms() and many prunable partitions

From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ExecRTCheckPerms() and many prunable partitions
Date: 2022-04-06 01:18:48
Message-ID: CA+HiwqFXVfGwF-+ngHh=SjXP0Q2EebXWSpg0d189qJkzBT0yzQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 5:22 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 02:27, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> >
> > This is failing regression tests. I don't understand how this patch
> > could be affecting this test though. Perhaps it's a problem with the
> > json patches that were committed recently -- but they don't seem to be
> > causing other patches to fail.
>
> I think this will just be related to the useprefix =
> list_length(es->rtable) > 1; in show_plan_tlist(). There's likely not
> much point in keeping the RTE for the view anymore. IIRC it was just
> there to check permissions. Amit has now added another way of doing
> those.

That is correct.

I have rebased the patch and updated expected output of the failing test.

--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
v12-0002-Do-not-add-hidden-OLD-NEW-RTEs-to-stored-view-ru.patch application/octet-stream 121.1 KB
v12-0001-Rework-query-relation-permission-checking.patch application/octet-stream 158.6 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andy Fan 2022-04-06 01:26:06 Re: How to generate a WAL record spanning multiple WAL files?
Previous Message Thom Brown 2022-04-06 01:04:48 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow time delayed standbys and recovery