Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I just looked over the latest version of this patch and it seems to satisfy
>> all the issues suggested by the initial review. This looks like it's ready
>> for a committer from a quality perspective and I'm going to mark it as such.
> yes. i have just finished my tests and seems like the patch is working
> just fine...
> BTW, seems like KaiGai miss this comment in
> src/backend/catalog/pg_largeobject.c when renaming the parameter
> * large_object_privilege_checks is not refered here,
> i still doesn't like the name but we have changed it a lot of times so
> if anyone has a better idea now is when you have to speak
Oops, it should be fixed to "lo_compat_privileges".
This comment also have version number issue, so I fixed it as follows:
* large_object_privilege_checks is not refered here,
* because it is a compatibility option, but we don't
* have ALTER LARGE OBJECT prior to the v8.5.0.
* The 'lo_compat_privileges' is not checked here, because we
* don't have any access control features in the 8.4.x series
* or earlier release.
* So, it is not a place we can define a compatible behavior.
Nothing are changed in other codes, including something corresponding to
in-place upgrading. I'm waiting for suggestion.
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-12-07 05:26:42|
|Subject: Re: operator exclusion constraints |
|Previous:||From: Michael Paquier||Date: 2009-12-07 04:51:59|
|Subject: Re: pgbench: new feature allowing to launch shell commands|