Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Remove old RULE privilege completely.

  1. Remove old RULE privilege completely

    Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2024-09-09T14:36:46Z

    Hi,

In v8.2, the RULE privilege for tables was removed, but for backward compatibility,
GRANT/REVOKE RULE, has_table_privilege(..., 'RULE') etc are still accepted,
though they don't perform any actions.

Do we still need to maintain this backward compatibility?
Could we consider removing the RULE privilege entirely?

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

  2. Re: Remove old RULE privilege completely

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2024-09-09T16:02:10Z

    On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 10:37 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> In v8.2, the RULE privilege for tables was removed, but for backward compatibility,
> GRANT/REVOKE RULE, has_table_privilege(..., 'RULE') etc are still accepted,
> though they don't perform any actions.
>
> Do we still need to maintain this backward compatibility?
> Could we consider removing the RULE privilege entirely?

8.2 is a long time ago. If it's really been dead since then, I think
we should remove it.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

  3. Re: Remove old RULE privilege completely

    Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2024-09-09T17:45:37Z

    
On 2024/09/10 1:02, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 10:37 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>> In v8.2, the RULE privilege for tables was removed, but for backward compatibility,
>> GRANT/REVOKE RULE, has_table_privilege(..., 'RULE') etc are still accepted,
>> though they don't perform any actions.
>>
>> Do we still need to maintain this backward compatibility?
>> Could we consider removing the RULE privilege entirely?
> 
> 8.2 is a long time ago. If it's really been dead since then, I think
> we should remove it.

Ok, so, patch attached.

There was a test to check if has_table_privilege() accepted the keyword RULE.
The patch removed it since it's now unnecessary and would only waste cycles
testing that has_table_privilege() no longer accepts the keyword.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

  4. Re: Remove old RULE privilege completely

    Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2024-09-09T19:49:58Z

    On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 02:45:37AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2024/09/10 1:02, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 10:37 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>> > In v8.2, the RULE privilege for tables was removed, but for backward compatibility,
>> > GRANT/REVOKE RULE, has_table_privilege(..., 'RULE') etc are still accepted,
>> > though they don't perform any actions.
>> > 
>> > Do we still need to maintain this backward compatibility?
>> > Could we consider removing the RULE privilege entirely?
>> 
>> 8.2 is a long time ago. If it's really been dead since then, I think
>> we should remove it.

+1.  It seems more likely to cause confusion at this point.

> Ok, so, patch attached.
> 
> There was a test to check if has_table_privilege() accepted the keyword RULE.
> The patch removed it since it's now unnecessary and would only waste cycles
> testing that has_table_privilege() no longer accepts the keyword.

LGTM

-- 
nathan

  5. Re: Remove old RULE privilege completely

    Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2024-09-11T14:55:47Z

    
On 2024/09/10 4:49, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Ok, so, patch attached.
>>
>> There was a test to check if has_table_privilege() accepted the keyword RULE.
>> The patch removed it since it's now unnecessary and would only waste cycles
>> testing that has_table_privilege() no longer accepts the keyword.
> 
> LGTM

Thanks for the review! Barring any objections, I'll commit the patch.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION