On 2025/01/23 19:22, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:30:17 +0100
> Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2024-09-13 at 16:18 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
>>> I've attached a updated patch. The test is rewritten using has_largeobject_privilege()
>>> function instead of calling loread & lowrite, which makes the test a bit simpler.
>>> Thare are no other changes.
>>
>> When I tried to apply this patch, I found that it doesn't apply any
>> more since commit f391d9dc93 renamed tab-complete.c to tab-complete.in.c.
>>
>> Attached is a rebased patch.
>
> Thank you for updating the patch!
>
>> I agree that large objects are a feature that should fade out (alas,
>> the JDBC driver still uses it for BLOBs). But this patch is not big
>> or complicated and is unlikely to create a big maintenance burden.
>>
>> So I am somewhat for committing it. It works as advertised.
>> If you are fine with my rebased patch, I can mark it as "ready for
>> committer". If it actually gets committed depends on whether there
>> is a committer who thinks it worth the effort or not.
>
> I confirmed the patch and I am fine with it.
I've started reviewing this patch since it's marked as "ready for committer".
I know of several systems that use large objects, and I believe
this feature would be beneficial for them. Overall, I like the idea.
The latest patch looks good to me. I just have one minor comment:
> only the privileges for schemas, tables (including views and foreign
> tables), sequences, functions, and types (including domains) can be
> altered.
In alter_default_privileges.sgml, this part should also mention large objects?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
