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

Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
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: 2009-12-17 14:16:59
Message-ID: 603c8f070912170616q4edca247qf49990550c148ad@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2009/12/17 Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>:
>
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> 2009/12/16 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
>> >>>> ? ?long desc: When turned on, privilege checks on large objects perform with
>> >>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? backward compatibility as 8.4.x or earlier releases.
>
>> Mostly English quality, but there are some other issues too.  Proposed
>> patch attached.
>
> I remember we had discussions about the version number, like
> "Don't use '8.5' because it might be released as '9.0'", no?

I chose to follow the style which Tom indicated that he preferred
here.  We don't use the phrase "8.4.x series" anywhere else in the
documentation, so this doesn't seem like a good time to start.  Tom or
I will go through and renumber everything if we end up renaming the
release to 9.0.

> Another comment is I'd like to keep <link linkend="catalog-pg-largeobject-metadata">
> for the first <structname>pg_largeobject</structname> in each topic.

Those two things aren't the same.  Perhaps you meant <link
linkend="catalog-pg-largeobject">? I'll tweak the pg_largeobject and
pg_largeobject_metadata sections to make sure each has a link to the
other and commit this.  I also found one more spelling mistake so I
will include that correction as well.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-12-17 14:35:39
Subject: Re: NOT IN Doesn't use Anti Joins?
Previous:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2009-12-17 14:02:57
Subject: NOT IN Doesn't use Anti Joins?

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