From: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: User-Id Tracking when Portal was started |
Date: | 2012-07-03 15:42:17 |
Message-ID: | CADyhKSX6U5UbGznkXe5iNaWG+ADAsuqdUbAkbhLTd+QXH=2_9g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/7/3 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> writes:
>> 2012/7/3 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>> Why not just save and restore the user ID and security context
>>> unconditionally, instead of doing this kind of dance?
>>>
>>> + if (portal->userId != GetUserId())
>>> + SetUserIdAndSecContext(portal->userId, portal->secCo
>>> + else
>>> + saveUserId = InvalidOid;
>>>
>> In case when CurrentUserId was updated during the code block
>> (E.g, execution of SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION), it overwrites
>> this update on restoring user-id and security-context.
>
> Um... what should happen if there was a SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION
> to the portal's userId? This test will think nothing happened.
>
In my test, all the jobs by SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION was cleaned-up...
It makes nothing happen from viewpoint of users.
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-07-03 15:42:29 | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-03 15:41:09 | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |