reductionista commented on a change in pull request #554:
URL: https://github.com/apache/madlib/pull/554#discussion_r586993101
##########
File path: src/ports/postgres/modules/utilities/utilities.py_in
##########
@@ -775,6 +775,17 @@ def is_superuser(user):
return plpy.execute("SELECT rolsuper FROM pg_catalog.pg_roles "\
"WHERE rolname = '{0}'".format(user))[0]['rolsuper']
+def get_table_owner(schema_table):
+
+ split_table = schema_table.split(".",1)
+ schema = split_table[0]
Review comment:
Oh, I guess these steps wouldn't actually work, because of the ,1
argument passed to split.
But still, it seems risky... maybe we should think it through carefully and
add some more test cases to make sure.
What happens if the user table in the public schema is named
"madlib.custom_functions"?
Some users may have permission to create their own schemas, but not have
full admin access. They could create a schema named "madlib.custom" and a
table named "_functions"... seems like that might slip through, but I'd have to
look at it more to be sure.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
