| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ayush Vatsa <ayushvatsa1810(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes |
| Date: | 2025-03-09 15:48:05 |
| Message-ID: | 279947.1741535285@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 05:17:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ReindexIndex() faces this same problem and solves it with some
>> very complex code that manages to get the table's lock first.
> I noticed that amcheck's bt_index_check_internal() handles this problem,
> ...
> stats_lock_check_privileges() does something similar, but it's not as
> cautious about the "heapid != IndexGetRelation(indrelid, false)" race
> condition.
Egad, we've already got three inconsistent implementations of this
functionality? I think the first step must be to unify them into
a common implementation, if at all possible.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Achilleas Mantzios - cloud | 2025-03-10 07:41:38 | Re: No. Of wal files generated |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-03-09 01:35:18 | Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-03-09 16:38:49 | Re: Parallel CREATE INDEX for GIN indexes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-03-09 15:45:41 | Re: Printing window function OVER clauses in EXPLAIN |