From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Avoid lost result of recursion (src/backend/optimizer/util/inherit.c) |
Date: | 2022-12-21 01:45:18 |
Message-ID: | CAApHDvrn2RCjEr=y++CJPi3D5yUfUnmvZCPN6oTPZ7D=RjGgcw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 at 13:15, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> IMO, I think that commit a61b1f7, has an oversight.
> Currently is losing the result of recursion of function translate_col_privs_multilevel.
>
> Once the variable result (Bitmapset pointer) is reassigned.
>
> Without a test case for this patch.
> But also, do not have a test case for the current thinko in head.
hmm, that code looks a bit suspect to me too.
Are you able to write a test that shows the bug which fails before
your change and passes after applying it? I don't think it's quite
enough to claim that your changes pass make check given that didn't
fail before your change.
Also, I think it might be better to take the opportunity to rewrite
the function to not use recursion. I don't quite see the need for it
here and it looks like that might have helped contribute to the
reported issue. Can't we just write this as a while loop instead of
having the function call itself? It's not as if we need stack space
for keeping track of multiple parents. A child relation can only have
1 parent. It seems to me that we can just walk there by looping.
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2022-12-21 01:45:29 | Re: Refactor SCRAM code to dynamically handle hash type and key length |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2022-12-21 01:44:27 | Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early |