| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix LOCK TABLE to eliminate the race condition that could make it |
| Date: | 2009-05-12 20:50:38 |
| Message-ID: | 1242161438.3843.334.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 16:43 +0000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fix LOCK TABLE to eliminate the race condition that could make it give weird
> errors when tables are concurrently dropped. To do this we must take lock
> on each relation before we check its privileges. The old code was trying
> to do that the other way around, which is a bit pointless when there are lots
> of other commands that lock relations before checking privileges. I did keep
> it checking each relation's privilege before locking the next relation, which
> is a detail that ALTER TABLE isn't too picky about.
If we're going to require cascaded permissions like this, would it make
sense to make GRANT cascade down the inheritance tree also?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-12 21:10:24 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix LOCK TABLE to eliminate the race condition that could make it |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-12 20:17:46 | pgsql: Fix intratransaction memory leaks in xml_recv, xmlconcat, |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2009-05-12 20:57:07 | Re: DROP TABLE vs inheritance |
| Previous Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2009-05-12 20:40:35 | Re: DROP TABLE vs inheritance |