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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Vaishnavi Prabakaran
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal ofsuperuser() checks
Дата
Msg-id CAOoUkxRXiupOkyVZ1jzCAt0sh3O_md51wO-BrXo0-kMy7m47=Q@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal ofsuperuser() checks  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal ofsuperuser() checks  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
Hi,

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:

>>@@ -163,22 +150,16 @@ lo_read(int fd, char *buf, int len)
>> ....
>> + if ((lobj->flags & IFS_RDLOCK) == 0)
>>+ ereport(ERROR,
>>+ (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
>>+ errmsg("large object descriptor %d was not opened for reading",
>>+ fd)));
>
> Do we ever reach this error? Because per my understanding

This error can be reached, and it is part of the regression tests. One
query which passed previously is now failing:
+SELECT loread(lo_open(1001, x'20000'::int), 32);   -- fail, wrong mode
+ERROR:  large object descriptor 0 was not opened for reading


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.


Thanks & Regards,
Vaishnavi,
Fujitsu Australia.

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations
Следующее
От: "Bossart, Nathan"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations