Re: table partitioning and access privileges
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: table partitioning and access privileges |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 60c183dc-c1b8-4cb7-4822-61abd9741e8c@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: table partitioning and access privileges (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/02/17 17:13, Amit Langote wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 4:59 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: >> On 2020/02/14 10:28, Amit Langote wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:39 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: >>>> We can verify that even "LOCK TABLE ONLY" command works >>>> expectedly on the inherited tables by keeping those SQLs in the >>>> regression test. So what about not removing these SQLs? >>> >>> Hmm, that test becomes meaningless with the behavior change we are >>> introducing, but I am okay with not removing it. >> >> Only this regression test seems to verify LOCK TABLE ONLY command. >> So if we remove this, I'm afraid that the test coverage would be reduced. > > Oh, I didn't notice that this is the only instance of testing LOCK > TABLE ONLY. I would've expected that the test for: > > 1. checking that ONLY works correctly with LOCK TABLE, and > 2. checking permission works correctly with ONLY > > are separate. Anyway, we can leave that as is. > >>> However, I added a test showing that locking child table directly doesn't work. >>> >>> Attached updated patch. >> >> Thanks for updating the patch! >> Barring any objection, I will commit the patch. > > Thank you. Pushed. Thanks! Regards, -- Fujii Masao NTT DATA CORPORATION Advanced Platform Technology Group Research and Development Headquarters
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: