Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2023-Jan-19, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ah, sorry, -ENOCAFFEINE. It's talking about the access-as-user field,
>> not the relation's owner. I agree that as querytrees are currently
>> built, this is probably a safe optimization. But do we really want
>> to hard-wire such a subtle assumption to gain a microscopic speed
>> benefit? It's not as though GetUserId() is expensive.
> Well, I didn't see it as an optimization but rather a removal of
> confusing code. Given the current RTEPermissionInfo representation,
> it's just not possible for an "otherrel" to have a different
> access-as-user value than what "the relation mentioned in the query"
> has -- by construction, they share the same RTEPermissionInfo.
> If we wanted to decouple selfuncs.c from that knowledge, then what we
> should be doing is obtain the RTEPermissionInfo for the relation, and
> use the userid from there. But the code I deleted wasn't doing that, it
> was just using the same 'onerel' all the time. It's not difficult (or
> expensive) to do otherwise, but it seems somewhat pointless.
Hmm. Point taken, and I agree that it's not worth adding complication
that wasn't there before to track this. No further objection.
regards, tom lane
