From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Christoph Heiss <christoph(dot)heiss(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | walther(at)technowledgy(dot)de, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add reloption for views to enable RLS |
Date: | 2022-03-14 16:16:33 |
Message-ID: | 89079505ab53c788100015a964099a32dc2e912c.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2022-03-14 at 13:40 +0100, Christoph Heiss wrote:
> On 3/9/22 16:06, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > This paragraph contains a couple of grammatical errors.
>
> Replaced the two paragraphs with your suggestion, it is indeed easier to
> read.
>
> > Also, this:
> > could be written like this (introducing a new variable):
> >
> > if (rule->event == CMD_SELECT
> > && relation->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_VIEW
> > && RelationHasSecurityInvoker(relation))
> > user_for_check = InvalidOid;
> > else
> > user_for_check = relation->rd_rel->relowner;
> >
> > setRuleCheckAsUser((Node *) rule->actions, user_for_check);
> > setRuleCheckAsUser(rule->qual, user_for_check);
> >
> > This might be easier to read.
>
> Makes sense, I've changed that. This also seems to be more in line with
> all the other code.
> While at it I also split the comment alongside it to match, hopefully
> that makes sense.
The patch is fine from my point of view.
It passes "make check-world".
I'll mark it as "ready for committer".
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Imseih (AWS), Sami | 2022-03-14 16:20:51 | Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum |
Previous Message | Dipesh Pandit | 2022-03-14 16:11:35 | Re: refactoring basebackup.c |