| From: | Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de |
| Subject: | Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) fails when table owner lacks CONNECT |
| Date: | 2026-08-27 19:52:32 |
| Message-ID: | 9c2c4193-0de8-48a7-92be-fa468de6bd4f@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 27/08/26 16:19, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> The patch looks reasonable to me.
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 03:55:11PM -0300, Matheus Alcantara wrote:
>> Added this new test case on attached.
>
> I'm not sure the new tests are necessary. It seems unlikely that we'll
> accidentally remove the flags down the road.
>
Yeah, I also think that is unlikely that we'll remove, I just put the
test to be more conservative. I think that is good to have such tests
to ensure that these bugs are not re-introduced but given that this
seems a minor/oversight I'm not totally against not adding them.
Attached is v3 without the tests.
--
Matheus Alcantara
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-Let-the-REPACK-decoding-worker-bypass-connection-.patch | text/plain | 2.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2026-08-27 19:57:18 | Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) doesn't check the table AM |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-08-27 19:48:53 | Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) doesn't check the table AM |