Re: SECURITY LABEL on shared database object
От | Kohei KaiGai |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SECURITY LABEL on shared database object |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CADyhKSWaKKJTrP5TKbqtFokqA7vkZyLxGCNrFpqqUCuujBAKNA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SECURITY LABEL on shared database object (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: SECURITY LABEL on shared database object
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2011/7/2 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> writes: >> The origin of matter is, as you mentioned, collation to be used for system >> catalog scan when we reference it via syscache. >> So, the following chunk should be added, as I did in the userspace access >> vector patch - part.1. > >> @@ -934,8 +935,7 @@ CatalogCacheInitializeCache(CatCache *cache) >> /* Fill in sk_strategy as well --- always standard equality */ >> cache->cc_skey[i].sk_strategy = BTEqualStrategyNumber; >> cache->cc_skey[i].sk_subtype = InvalidOid; >> - /* Currently, there are no catcaches on collation-aware data types */ >> - cache->cc_skey[i].sk_collation = InvalidOid; >> + cache->cc_skey[i].sk_collation = DEFAULT_COLLATION_OID; > > I removed such a hunk from a previous patch of yours, and I don't like > it any better this time. This is just a hack that will result in > masking bugs. > > Consider using a non-collation-aware datatype instead, such as NAME. > I agree that pg_(sh)seclabel.provider field shall not need more than NAMEDATALEN. How about re-define pg_seclabel.provider field also; currently defined as TEXT? Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: