Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:34:02 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18310: Some SQL commands fail to process duplicate objects
 with error: tuple already updated by self
Message-ID: <ZbbkaguEsLj42Spb@paquier.xyz>
References: <18310-1eb233c5908189c8@postgresql.org>
 <ZbMeI3EyyDlP-Agv@paquier.xyz>
 <CAHewXNnK9JShDv6cffAQgQNDb3RPq6M+LHRC16U=1-bUPZYU7g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jWF7OJj3fFrvaJIU"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHewXNnK9JShDv6cffAQgQNDb3RPq6M+LHRC16U=1-bUPZYU7g@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZbbkaguEsLj42Spb%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--jWF7OJj3fFrvaJIU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:23:08AM +0800, Tender Wang wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> =E4=BA=8E2024=E5=B9=B41=E6=9C=8826=
=E6=97=A5=E5=91=A8=E4=BA=94 10:51=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>> For this job, I think user.c is just overengineered and could be
>> simplified to use a list of OIDs.  There is no need for ObjectAddress
>> or even ObjectAddresses: all of them are created with
>> AuthIdRelationId as class ID, and the second loop just fetches the
>> role IDs retrieved from the ObjectAddresses created in the first loop.
>> We don't use the individual ObjectAddress either.  On top of all that,
>> it makes the code a bit easier to follow.
>=20
> Agreed. +1

Thanks, I've applied this one down v16 as of 50b797dc99ec.  v15 and
older do not use a two-pass logic in DropRole() so one would fail with
a simpler "role does not exist", which is kind of correct in its own
way because the second role cannot be scanned in pg_authid after the
CCI of the first one, so I have let it be in older versions.  It's not
like somebody complained about that in the past, either, as far as I
recall.
--
Michael

--jWF7OJj3fFrvaJIU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=lS/r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jWF7OJj3fFrvaJIU--