On 2024/09/10 4:49, Nathan Bossart wrote:
Ok, so, patch attached.
There was a test to check if has_table_privilege() accepted the keyword RULE.
The patch removed it since it's now unnecessary and would only waste cycles
testing that has_table_privilege() no longer accepts the keyword.
LGTM
On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 02:45:37AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2024/09/10 1:02, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 10:37 AM Fujii Masao
>> wrote:
>> > In v8.2, the RULE privilege for tables was removed, but for backward
>> > compatibility,
>> > GRANT/REVOKE RULE, has_table_privilege
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From 8e16ba2cfc988031d27a1a5ccbc71169e1956933 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Fujii Masao
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 23:33:55 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v1] Remove old RULE privilege completely.
The RULE privilege for tables was removed in v8.2, but for backward
compatibility, GRANT/REVOKE and
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 10:37 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
> In v8.2, the RULE privilege for tables was removed, but for backward
> compatibility,
> GRANT/REVOKE RULE, has_table_privilege(..., 'RULE') etc are still accepted,
> though they don't perform any actions.
>
> Do we still need to maintain this b
Hi,
In v8.2, the RULE privilege for tables was removed, but for backward
compatibility,
GRANT/REVOKE RULE, has_table_privilege(..., 'RULE') etc are still accepted,
though they don't perform any actions.
Do we still need to maintain this backward compatibility?
Could we consider removing the RUL
