Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

From: Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Date: 2009-12-18 06:48:13
Message-ID: 20091218154813.19B9.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> In both cases, I'm lost.  Help?

They might be contrasted with the comments for myLargeObjectExists.
Since we use MVCC visibility in loread(), metadata for large object
also should be visible in MVCC rule.

If I understand them, they say:
  * pg_largeobject_aclmask_snapshot requires a snapshot which will be
    used in loread().
  * Don't use LargeObjectExists if you need MVCC visibility.

> 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.

Ah, ACL_NO_RIGHTS is the default.

> 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.

Hmmm, now it dumps not only comments but also ownership of large objects.
Should we rename it dumpBlobMetadata() or so?

Regards,
---
Takahiro Itagaki
NTT Open Source Software Center



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2009-12-18 06:55:49
Subject: Re: COPY IN as SELECT target
Previous:From: KaiGai KoheiDate: 2009-12-18 06:05:08
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove redundant ownership checks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group