Thread: parser handling of large object OIDs

gram.y treats large object identifiers inconsistently.  The privileges
stuff treats them as IConst:
           | LARGE_P OBJECT_P Iconst_list               {                   PrivTarget *n = (PrivTarget *)
palloc(sizeof(PrivTarget));                  n->targtype = ACL_TARGET_OBJECT;                   n->objtype =
ACL_OBJECT_LARGEOBJECT;                  n->objs = $3;                   $$ = n;               }
 
           | ALTER LARGE_P OBJECT_P Iconst OWNER TO RoleId               {                   AlterOwnerStmt *n =
makeNode(AlterOwnerStmt);                  n->objectType = OBJECT_LARGEOBJECT;                   n->object =
list_make1(makeInteger($4));                  n->newowner = $7;                   $$ = (Node *)n;               }
 

But the comment code treats them as NumericOnly.
           | COMMENT ON LARGE_P OBJECT_P NumericOnly IS comment_text               {                   CommentStmt *n =
makeNode(CommentStmt);                  n->objtype = OBJECT_LARGEOBJECT;                   n->objname = list_make1($5);
                 n->objargs = NIL;                   n->comment = $7;                   $$ = (Node *) n;
}

I believe that the comment code is probably right, because I think
IConst can only handle values < 2^31, whereas OIDs can be as large as
2^32-1.

Thoughts?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe that the comment code is probably right, because I think
> IConst can only handle values < 2^31, whereas OIDs can be as large as
> 2^32-1.

I investigated this a little more and the above analysis turns out to
be correct.  ALTER LARGE OBJECT OWNER and GRANT ... ON LARGE OBJECT
don't work for large objects outside the range of a signed integer.
Session demonstrating the problem and proposed patch attached.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I believe that the comment code is probably right, because I think
>> IConst can only handle values < 2^31, whereas OIDs can be as large as
>> 2^32-1.

> I investigated this a little more and the above analysis turns out to
> be correct.  ALTER LARGE OBJECT OWNER and GRANT ... ON LARGE OBJECT
> don't work for large objects outside the range of a signed integer.

Yup.

> Session demonstrating the problem and proposed patch attached.

This patch seems extremely grotty, though.  Surely that's not the way we
were doing it in the comment code?
        regards, tom lane

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I believe that the comment code is probably right, because I think
>>> IConst can only handle values < 2^31, whereas OIDs can be as large as
>>> 2^32-1.
>
>> I investigated this a little more and the above analysis turns out to
>> be correct.  ALTER LARGE OBJECT OWNER and GRANT ... ON LARGE OBJECT
>> don't work for large objects outside the range of a signed integer.
>
> Yup.
>
>> Session demonstrating the problem and proposed patch attached.
>
> This patch seems extremely grotty, though.  Surely that's not the way we
> were doing it in the comment code?

I pretty much just moved the existing code from CommentLargeObject()
into a new function oidparse().  I couldn't really figure out where to
put the oidparse() function so I eventually decided on oid.c, and
therefore also ripped out the trip through the fmgr layer in favor of
calling the appropriate code directly.  Other than that it's the same
code.  I'm open to suggestions, but this is basically just a small bit
of code rearrangement.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company