| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Lock conflict behavior? |
| Date: | 2009-01-21 23:08:52 |
| Message-ID: | 1232579332.3578.91.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 17:39 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > It looks like it would be easy enough to throw a better error message
> > than that, e.g. with a try/catch. The information could be obsolete, but
> > if it succeeds, it would at least mean they had permissions at some time
> > in the past.
> >
> > Or, we could just remove the ACL checks from LOCK TABLE, so that it's at
> > least consistent. Mostly it's the inconsistency that bothers me.
>
> Is this a TODO?
I don't feel too strongly about it. I would feel better if we were
consistent about the permissions checks, because there's less of a
chance for confusion or a false sense of security.
If we keep the permission check in LockTableCommand(), I can make a
patch that produces a more useful error message when the table is
removed right before the pg_class_aclcheck().
Right now it does:
ERROR: relation with OID 16542 does not exist
which is undesirable.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-01-21 23:29:43 | Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2)) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-21 23:06:44 | Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2)) |