Re: Support logical replication of DDLs

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 2:02 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2023-Feb-15, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 8:55 PM Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 11:41 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > > > 3. ExecuteGrantStmt
> > > >
> > > > + /* Copy the grantor id needed for DDL deparsing of Grant */
> > > > + istmt.grantor_uid = grantor;
> > > >
> > > > SUGGESTION (comment)
> > > > Copy the grantor id to the parsetree, needed for DDL deparsing of Grant
> > >
> > > didn't change this, as Alvaro said this was not a parsetree.
> >
> > Perhaps there is more to do here? Sorry, I did not understand the
> > details of Alvaro's post [1], but I did not recognize the difference
> > between ExecuteGrantStmt and ExecSecLabelStmt so it was my impression
> > either one or both of these places are either wrongly commented, or
> > maybe are doing something that should not be done.
>
> These two cases are different. In ExecGrantStmt we're adding the
> grantor OID to the InternalGrant struct, which is not a parse node, so
> there's no strong reason not to modify it (and also the suggested
> comment change is factually wrong). I don't know if the idea is great,
> but at least I see no strong objection.
>
> In the other case, as I said in [1], the patch proposes to edit the
> parse node to add the grantor, but I think a better idea might be to
> change the signature to
> ExecSecLabelStmt(SecLabelStmt *stmt, ObjectAddress *provider) so that
> the function can set the provider there; and caller passes
> &secondaryObject, which is the method we adopted for this kind of thing.
>

+1, that is a better approach to make the required change in ExecSecLabelStmt().

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.