On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
OK, I modified the patch according to your suggestions.
object_access_hook was extended to take an argument of void * pointer,
and InvokeObjectAccessHook was also allows to deliver it.
Sorry for the long radio silence on
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
OK, I modified the patch according to your suggestions.
object_access_hook was extended to take an argument of void * pointer,
and
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
2012/1/26 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
It seems to me reasonable design.
The attached patch is rebased one according to your perform-deletion
2012/1/26 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
It seems to me reasonable design.
The attached patch is rebased one according to your perform-deletion patch.
That looks pretty sensible. But I don't think this is true any
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
It seems to me reasonable design.
The attached patch is rebased one according to your perform-deletion patch.
That looks pretty sensible. But I don't think this is true any more:
+Please note that it shall not be
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
I tried to implement based on the idea to call object-access-hook with
flag; that
informs extensions contexts of objects being removed.
Because I missed DROP_RESTRICT and DROP_CASCADE are enum type,
this patch added
2012/1/19 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
2012/1/19 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
In sepgsql side, it determines a case to apply permission
2012/1/19 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
In sepgsql side, it determines a case to apply permission checks
according to the contextual information; that is same technique
when we implemented create permission.
Thus,
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
2012/1/19 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
In sepgsql side, it determines a case to apply permission checks
according to the contextual
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
In sepgsql side, it determines a case to apply permission checks
according to the contextual information; that is same technique
when we implemented create permission.
Thus, it could checks db_xxx:{drop} permission
2012/1/17 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
The attached patch adds OAT_DROP object-access-hook around permission
checks of object deletion.
Due to the previous drop statement reworks, the number of places to
put this
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
Do I modify the patch to place object-access-hook on deleteOneObject
(probably, it is the best position to track actual deletion)?
One problem is case of deletion of columns by ALTER TABLE.
It just marks attisdropped
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
The attached patch adds OAT_DROP object-access-hook around permission
checks of object deletion.
Due to the previous drop statement reworks, the number of places to
put this hook is limited to these six points:
13 matches
Mail list logo
