On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote: > 2012/7/4 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote: >>>> My point is that it seems like a bug that the secContext gets restored >>>> in one case and not the other, depending on which user ID was specified >>>> in SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION. >>>> >>> Sorry, the above description mention about a case when it does not use >>> the marker to distinguish a case to switch user-id from a case not to >>> switch. >>> (I though I was asked the behavior if this logic always switches / >>> restores ids.) >>> >>> The patch itself works correctly, no regression test failed even though >>> several tests switches user-id using SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION. >> >> I don't believe that proves anything. There are lots of things that >> aren't tested by the regression tests, and there's no guarantee that >> any you've added cover all bases, either. We always treat user-ID and >> security context as a unit; you haven't given any reason why this case >> should be handled differently, and I bet it shouldn't. >> > This patch always handles user-id and security context as a unit. > In case when it was switched, then it shall be always restored. > And, in case when it was not switched, then it shall never be restored. > > Was my explanation confusing?
It's not that your explanation is confusing; it's that it doesn't match the code. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
