On 21 March 2014 17:49, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: >> >> + * 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.
By "well entrenched", I think you mean undocumented, untested, unintentional? Do we think anyone *relies* on being able to say the word TABLE when in fact they mean VIEW or SEQUENCE? How is that artefact anything but a bug? i.e. is anyone going to stop me fixing it? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
