| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Broken lock management in policy.c. |
| Date: | 2016-01-04 02:12:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSZJvWUYkjaKwDTn0c_zQx6PUpnYYnCL=ve6baMAnyMFA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Really? But the problem happens as a consequence of having a
>> subqueries within CREATE POLICY's USING quals
>
> If that's what we're talking about, let's say it in precisely that many
> words. With an example. The current text is 100% useless.
I agree that the text was unclear, and that that should be fixed,
because it's too complicated to expect anyone to understand this
without an example (indeed, that's why I used isolationtester to
explain the issue). My confusion was only about whether it was
understood that Stephen had fulfilled my request to document this
behavior.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-01-04 02:16:05 | Re: 9.5 BLOCKER: regrole and regnamespace and quotes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-01-04 02:09:03 | Re: Broken lock management in policy.c. |