On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 10:26:41 +0200
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 24.04.24 15:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut writes:
> >> On 24.04.24 11:59, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> >>> I noticed that a permission check is performed in be_lo_put()
> >>> just after returning inv_open(), but teh permission
On 24.04.24 15:25, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
On 24.04.24 11:59, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
I noticed that a permission check is performed in be_lo_put()
just after returning inv_open(), but teh permission should be
already checked in inv_open(), so I think we can remove this
part of
On 25.04.24 01:50, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 09:25:09AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I agree. Do you want to do the honors?
Good catch. The same check happens when the object is opened. Note
that you should be able to remove utils/acl.h at the top of
be-fsstubs.c as this
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 09:25:09AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I agree. Do you want to do the honors?
Good catch. The same check happens when the object is opened. Note
that you should be able to remove utils/acl.h at the top of
be-fsstubs.c as this would remove the last piece of code that does
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 24.04.24 11:59, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
>> I noticed that a permission check is performed in be_lo_put()
>> just after returning inv_open(), but teh permission should be
>> already checked in inv_open(), so I think we can remove this
>> part of codes. I attached a patch
On 24.04.24 11:59, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
I noticed that a permission check is performed in be_lo_put()
just after returning inv_open(), but teh permission should be
already checked in inv_open(), so I think we can remove this
part of codes. I attached a patch for this fix.
Yes, I think you are
Hi,
I noticed that a permission check is performed in be_lo_put()
just after returning inv_open(), but teh permission should be
already checked in inv_open(), so I think we can remove this
part of codes. I attached a patch for this fix.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo NAGATA
diff --git
