Re: Extend ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES for large objects
От | Yugo Nagata |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Extend ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES for large objects |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20250710103041.f93be994017e4ab61b9b9c35@sraoss.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Extend ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES for large objects (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Extend ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES for large objects
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 20:42:42 +0900 Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > > On 2025/06/11 13:57, Yugo Nagata wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 13:33:07 +0900 > > Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 2025/06/11 11:49, Yugo Nagata wrote: > >>> While looking at the thread [1], I've remembered this thread. > >>> The patches in this thread are partially v18-related, but include > >>> enhancement or fixes for existing feature, so should they be postponed > >>> to v19, or should be separated properly to v18 part and other? > >>> > >>> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/70372bdd-4399-4d5b-ab4f-6d4487a4911a%40oss.nttdata.com > >> > >> I see these patches more as enhancements to psql tab-completion, > >> rather than fixes for clear oversights in the original commit. > >> > >> For example, if tab-completion for ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES had > >> completely missed LARGE OBJECTS, that would be an obvious oversight. > >> But these patches go beyond that kind of issue. > >> > >> That said, if others think it's appropriate to include them in v18 > >> for consistency or completeness, I'm fine with that. > >> > >> Regarding the 0002 patch: > >> > >> - else if (Matches("GRANT", MatchAnyN, "ON", MatchAny, MatchAny)) > >> - COMPLETE_WITH("TO"); > >> - else if (Matches("REVOKE", MatchAnyN, "ON", MatchAny, MatchAny)) > >> - COMPLETE_WITH("FROM"); > >> + else if (Matches("GRANT/REVOKE", MatchAnyN, "ON", MatchAny, MatchAny)) > >> + { > >> + if (TailMatches("FOREIGN", "SERVER")) > >> + COMPLETE_WITH_QUERY(Query_for_list_of_servers); > >> + else if (!TailMatches("LARGE", "OBJECT")) > >> + { > >> + if (Matches("GRANT", MatchAnyN, "ON", MatchAny, MatchAny)) > >> + COMPLETE_WITH("TO"); > >> + else > >> + COMPLETE_WITH("FROM"); > >> + } > >> + } > >> > >> Wouldn't this change break the case where "GRANT ... ON TABLE ... <TAB>" > >> is supposed to complete with "TO"? > > > > Sorry, I made a stupid mistake. > > > >> + else if (Matches("GRANT/REVOKE", MatchAnyN, "ON", MatchAny, MatchAny)) > > > > This should be "GRANT|REVOKE". > > > > I've attached update patches. (There is no change on 0001.) > > Thanks for updating the patch! At first I've pushed the 0001 patch. > > As for the 0002 patch: > > + if (TailMatches("FOREIGN", "SERVER")) > + COMPLETE_WITH_QUERY(Query_for_list_of_servers); > > This part seems not needed, since we already have the following tab-completion code: > > /* FOREIGN SERVER */ > else if (TailMatches("FOREIGN", "SERVER")) > COMPLETE_WITH_QUERY(Query_for_list_of_servers); > > Thought? You're right. I must have overlooked something. I think I saw "TO" being suggested after "FOREIGN SERVER" when no foreign servers were defined. The attached patch still prevents "TO/FROM" from being suggested after "FOREIGN SERVER" in such cases. But perhaps this corner case doesn't really need to be handled? Regards, Yugo Nagata -- Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: