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

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.