On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 03:46:17PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Noah Misch (noah@leadboat.com) wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 12:55:33AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > * Noah Misch (noah@leadboat.com) wrote:
> > > > This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send
> > > > a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
> > > > update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> > > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.GA447393@tornado.leadboat.com
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, not going to make any further progress on this tonight or
> > > over the weekend as I'm going to be out of town. I believe I've
> > > convinced myself that adding a template1 entry to pg_init_privs will be
> > > both sufficient and produce the correct results, along with adjusting
> > > the query in pg_dumpall to join through it. Will provide an update on
> > > Monday.
> >
> > This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is long past due for your status update. Kindly
> > send a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent
> > status update. (Your Tuesday posting lacked a date.)
>
> Yeah, I realized that tablespaces have the same issue and have updated
> the patch to address them as well, in the same way.
>
> Going through and doing testing now. Unfortunately, it doesn't look
> like adding in testing of tablespaces into the TAP tests would be very
> easy (the only TAP test that deals with tablespaces that I found was
> pg_basebackup and that looks rather grotty..), so I'm not planning to do
> that, at least not at this time.
>
> As such, I'm planning to commit the patch with the fix+regression test
> for database ACLs and the fix for tablespace ACLs either later today
> or tomorrow.
Does commit 47f5bb9 fully fix this open item?