| From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, rmt(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: RI fastpath misses checking EXECUTE on functions |
| Date: | 2026-09-26 02:15:40 |
| Message-ID: | CA+HiwqH9Sr62abqVPmpMsw2DFzMtr2iynxwv9Ryc1BarqQ09QQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 8:45 PM Matheus Alcantara
<matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 25/09/26 05:16, Amit Langote wrote:
> >> ri_CheckFunctionPermissions(riinfo, fpmeta) passes both when fpmeta
> >> == riinfo->fpmeta. I'm wondering if we could just pass riinfo?
> >
> > That's just for consistency with build_index_scankeys(); it isn't
> > needed, so I don't feel strongly either way.
> >
>
> Ok, make sense.
>
> >> IIUC this patch only fix the case for FastPath without batching right?
> >> Since batching is still on master, I'm wondering if we could also fix
> >> it. See attached patch (v2-0001 is your v1-0001).
> >
> > I've left the batch code alone because I intend to revert it from
> > master too sometime next week. Thanks for the patch, though.
> >
>
> Ok, thanks for letting me know.
>
> > I have attached a new version where I polished
> > ri_CheckFunctionPermissions()'s comment and the commit message. I
> > would like to commit it tomorrow if there are no more comments.
> >
>
> Looks good to me.
Thanks, pushed.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Xuneng Zhou | 2026-09-26 02:55:21 | Re: Logical slot creation/synchronization on a standby may deadlock with recovery conflict resolution |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-09-26 01:06:02 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |