Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 23:03:01 +0100
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>,
	Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Running the fdw test from the terminal crashes into the core-dump
Message-ID: <202402232203.u6k7pvhhbqxy@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <708233.1708645700@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202402232203.u6k7pvhhbqxy%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2024-Feb-22, Tom Lane wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:

> > I propose the attached.  (Extra context so that the full paragraph can
> > be read from the comfort of your email program.)
> 
> This reads awkwardly to me.  I think it'd be better to construct it
> so that DO NOTHING's requirement is stated exactly parallel to the other
> three clause types, more or less as attached.

Sure, that works.

> BTW, if you read it without paying attention to markup, you'll notice
> that we are saying things like
> 
>     If you specify an insert action, you must have the INSERT
>     privilege on the target_table_name.
> 
> which is fairly nonsensical: we don't define privileges on the name
> of something.

Hmm, you're right, this is not strictly correct.

> While I've not done anything about that here, I wonder if we shouldn't
> just write "privilege on the target table" without any special markup.

That would work for me.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/