Subject: Re: table partitioning and access privileges
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: 
 <CAHGQGwFHdSvifhJE+-GSNqUHSfbiKxaeQQ7HGcYz6SC2n_oDcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+HiwqF55uZK6znXq7=qP-LS5HQkcjGEvCHxGUjYhJGq=z9nDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3546b691-b744-12c9-fd2f-7dc31c3c030e@oss.nttdata.com>
 <21015.1580400165@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <d686c99b-6567-9c6c-4f41-129a106afdb5@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CA+HiwqHfTnMU6SUkyHxCmpHUKk7ERLHCR3vZVq19ZOQBjPBLmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <f3dba4e6-ddeb-5126-b9a6-13a04c7c23dc@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CA+HiwqHpNqL9uL13pjrC6Ou2T-WnhoGftb6WXBPkK9nprex3Eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <79ee190f-8219-6091-d2e5-ffae1bcf8d6e@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CA+HiwqFbwt4=KQy3S4OOqi=Pi4QywNXxfqesAkAObxjUD9okVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ccfaf1b3-f7ab-1d56-6363-00ce1276bca5@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CA+HiwqEkiApF9ieeHJigYTohmjmjLR5SB6-i3FbOQnLSUy8Ezg@mail.gmail.com>
 <0e521cac-e00b-bf0f-4a11-5f7c2366a7f5@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CA+HiwqH7fWirNP=c776Rg4d5ivD2DMoEu-oQkLk8eaAKiqtk7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <6cb06600-94b4-e68d-f835-934fe4eb3fac@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CA+HiwqEomy4_soqxj+txFCH-NHWqJ8znyZVt6ceBBFBLc_KWqw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Message-ID: <60c183dc-c1b8-4cb7-4822-61abd9741e8c@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:16:56 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+HiwqEomy4_soqxj+txFCH-NHWqJ8znyZVt6ceBBFBLc_KWqw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2020/02/17 17:13, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 4:59 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>> On 2020/02/14 10:28, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:39 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>>>   We can verify that even "LOCK TABLE ONLY" command works
>>>> expectedly on the inherited tables by keeping those SQLs in the
>>>> regression test. So what about not removing these SQLs?
>>>
>>> Hmm, that test becomes meaningless with the behavior change we are
>>> introducing, but I am okay with not removing it.
>>
>> Only this regression test seems to verify LOCK TABLE ONLY command.
>> So if we remove this, I'm afraid that the test coverage would be reduced.
> 
> Oh, I didn't notice that this is the only instance of testing LOCK
> TABLE ONLY.  I would've expected that the test for:
> 
> 1. checking that ONLY works correctly with LOCK TABLE, and
> 2. checking permission works correctly with ONLY
> 
> are separate.  Anyway, we can leave that as is.
> 
>>> However, I added a test showing that locking child table directly doesn't work.
>>>
>>> Attached updated patch.
>>
>> Thanks for updating the patch!
>> Barring any objection, I will commit the patch.
> 
> Thank you.

Pushed. Thanks!

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Advanced Platform Technology Group
Research and Development Headquarters