On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: >> On 2016/03/13 4:46, Andres Freund wrote: >>> ... The difference apears to be the >>> check that's now in build_simple_rel() - there was nothing hitting the >>> user mapping code before for file_fdw. > >> Exactly. > >> I'm not sure it's worth complicating the code to keep that behavior, so >> I'd vote for adding the change notice to 9.6 release notes or something >> like that in addition to updating file-fdw.sgml. > > Perhaps it would be useful for an FDW to be able to specify that user > mappings are meaningless to it? And then bypass this check for such FDWs? > > I'm not really sold on enforcing that people create meaningless user > mappings. For one thing, they're likely to be sloppy about it, which > could lead to latent security problems if the FDW later acquires a > concept that user mappings mean something.
I think we should just fix build_simple_rel() so that it doesn't fail if there is no user mapping. It can just set rel->umid to InvalidOid in that case, and if necessary we can adjust the code elsewhere to tolerate that. This wasn't an intentional behavior change, and I think we should just put things back to the way they were. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers