Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal ofsuperuser() checks
| 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
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
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: