On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 04:11:12PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 21 March 2014 03:45, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 11:14:30AM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Thanks for the review. I'll respond to each point on a later email but > looks nothing much major, apart from the point raised on separate > thread. Yep. > >> + * Be careful to ensure this function is called for Tables and Indexes > >> only. > >> + * It is not currently safe to be called for Views because > >> security_barrier > >> + * is listed as an option and so would be allowed to be set at a level > >> lower > >> + * than AccessExclusiveLock, which would not be correct. > > > > This statement is accepted and takes only ShareUpdateExclusiveLock: > > > > alter table information_schema.triggers set (security_barrier = true); > > I find it hard to justify why we accept such a statement. Surely its a > bug when the named table turns out to be a view? Presumably ALTER > SEQUENCE and ALTER <other stuff> has checks for the correct object > type? OMG. We've framed ALTER TABLE's relkind leniency as a historic artifact. As a move toward stricter checks, ALTER TABLE refused to operate on foreign tables in 9.1 and 9.2. 9.3 reversed that course, though. For better or worse, ALTER TABLE is nearly a union of the relation ALTER possibilities. That choice is well-entrenched. -- Noah Misch EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers