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+HiwqGCQLKizA+Voyw3GjRv0q8t9adS2YFGmw6GzAbRb+yazg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwE+GauyG7POtRfRwwthAGwTjPQYdFHR97+LzA4RHGnJxA@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>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Message-ID: <6cb06600-94b4-e68d-f835-934fe4eb3fac@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 16:59:46 +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+HiwqH7fWirNP=c776Rg4d5ivD2DMoEu-oQkLk8eaAKiqtk7w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2020/02/14 10:28, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:39 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>> On 2020/02/07 10:39, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:16 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes, so I will review your patch getting rid of
>>>> LOCK TABLE exception.
>>>
>>> Attached updated patch.
>>
>> Thanks! This patch basically looks good to me except
>> the following minor comment.
>>
>>    ROLLBACK;
>> -BEGIN;
>> -LOCK TABLE ONLY lock_tbl1;
>> -ROLLBACK;
>>    RESET ROLE;
>>
>> I think that there is no strong reason why these SQLs need to be
>> removed. 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.

> 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.

Regards,

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