Re: Refactor recordExtObjInitPriv()

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Refactor recordExtObjInitPriv()
Date: 2023-01-16 11:01:47
Message-ID: c75daa72-9406-26f0-1e7b-b0625eda071a@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12.01.23 18:40, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 12:20:50PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>>> On 12.01.23 01:04, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>>> - classoid == AggregateRelationId ||
>>>> I noticed that AggregateRelationId isn't listed in the ObjectProperty
>>>> array, so I think recordExtObjInitPriv() will begin erroring for that
>>>> classoid instead of ignoring it like we do today.
>>
>>> Hmm, we do have some extensions in contrib that add aggregates (citext,
>>> intagg). I suspect that the aggregate function is actually registered
>>> into the extension via its pg_proc entry, so this wouldn't actually
>>> matter. But maybe the commenting should be clearer?
>>
>> Yeah, I don't believe that AggregateRelationId is used in object
>> addresses; we just refer to pg_proc for any kind of function including
>> aggregates. Note that there is no "oid" column in pg_aggregate.
>
> Got it, thanks for clarifying.

I have updated the patch as you suggested and split out the aggregate
issue into a separate patch for clarity.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Remove-AggregateRelationId-from-recordExtObjInitP.patch text/plain 1.1 KB
v2-0002-Refactor-recordExtObjInitPriv.patch text/plain 6.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) 2023-01-16 11:08:30 RE: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication
Previous Message Jelte Fennema 2023-01-16 10:53:57 Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] Support using "all" for the db user in pg_ident.conf