Re: [PATCH] refactor ATExec{En,Dis}ableRowSecurity

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] refactor ATExec{En,Dis}ableRowSecurity
Date: 2021-03-02 03:34:17
Message-ID: YD2yOYCRhnUjp6kA@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 03:30:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 0001 is a clean simplification and a good catch, so I'll see about
> applying it. 0002 just makes the code more confusing to the reader
> IMO, and its interface could easily lead to unwanted errors.

0001 has been applied as of fabde52.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message walker 2021-03-02 03:35:42 psql crash while executing core regression tests
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2021-03-02 03:25:29 Re: 64-bit XIDs in deleted nbtree pages