Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal ofsuperuser() checks

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Michael Paquier
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal ofsuperuser() checks
Дата
Msg-id CAB7nPqTgkOhNqrnQ1JuFcs6zWToXPATeYtdaeUCJ9cXAkAFbgA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal ofsuperuser() checks  (Vaishnavi Prabakaran <vaishnaviprabakaran@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal ofsuperuser() checks  (Vaishnavi Prabakaran <vaishnaviprabakaran@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Vaishnavi Prabakaran
<vaishnaviprabakaran@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I did realize on further reading the patch and what led to the
> confusion is that in the 3rd patch , updated documentation(copied below)
> still says that reading from a descriptor opened with INV_WRITE is possible.
> I think we need some correction here to reflect the modified code behavior.
>
> +     or other transactions.  Reading from a descriptor opened with
> +     <symbol>INV_WRITE</symbol> or <symbol>INV_READ</> <literal>|</>
> +     <symbol>INV_WRITE</symbol> returns data that reflects all writes of
> +     other committed transactions as well as writes of the current
> +     transaction.

Indeed, you are right. There is an error here. This should read as
"INV_READ | INV_WRITE" only. Using "INV_WRITE" implies that reads
cannot happen.
-- 
Michael

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Euler Taveira
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Enhancements to passwordcheck
Следующее
От: Amit Langote
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations