On 2023-Feb-15, Peter Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 8:55 PM Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 11:41 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.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] https://postgr.es/m/20230213090752.27ftbb6byiw3qcbl@alvherre.pgsql
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/