Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 603c8f070912172011g75ba91b7ud758e1543b2b672d@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460) (Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>) |
Ответы |
Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> > Another comment is I'd like to keep <link linkend="catalog-pg-largeobject-metadata"> >> > for the first <structname>pg_largeobject</structname> in each topic. >> Those two things aren't the same. Perhaps you meant <link >> linkend="catalog-pg-largeobject">? > Oops, yes. Thank you for the correction. > > We also have "8.4.x series" in the core code. Do you think we also > rewrite those messages? One of them is an use-visible message. Yes. I started going through the comments tonight. Partial patch attached. There were two comments that I was unable to understand and therefore could not reword - the one at the top of pg_largeobject_aclmask_snapshot(), and the second part of the comment at the top of LargeObjectExists(): * Note that LargeObjectExists always scans the system catalog * with SnapshotNow, so it is unavailable to use to check * existence in read-only accesses. In both cases, I'm lost. Help? In acldefault(), there is this comment: /* Grant SELECT,UPDATE by default, for now */ This doesn't seem to match what the code is doing, so I think we should remove it. I also notice that dumpBlobComments() is now misnamed, but it seems we've chosen to add a comment mentioning that fact rather than fixing it. That doesn't seem like the right approach. ...Robert
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: