From: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: DROP TABLE vs inheritance |
Date: | 2009-05-12 20:40:35 |
Message-ID: | 34d269d40905121340h535ef652kbf8f054811e42e39@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:10, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 21:18, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> However, he can do that anyway via ALTER TABLE, which
>> will happily take out AccessExclusiveLock before it checks any
>> permissions. So I'm not seeing the point of risking unsafe behavior
>> in LOCK TABLE.
>
> I would rather fix ALTER TABLE to do something similar to test and
> test-and-set... From a quick look TRUNCATE also seems to be prone to
> this.
Arg ok so TRUNCATE was a bad example because it checks ACL_TRUNCATE.
Hrm on second thought I think your right. They only get the lock
until the permission check, and I have a hard time seeing how someone
can take real advantage of that. The owner that is trying to lock
table should get the lock almost immediately even if there are say a
few hundred non-owner clients trying to lock it. So +1 for fixing
the LOCK TABLE.
Is ALTER TABLE RENAME at risk at well? It calls
CheckRelationOwnership before it grabs an AccessExclusiveLock.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-05-12 20:50:38 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix LOCK TABLE to eliminate the race condition that could make it |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-05-12 20:17:24 | Re: pg_migrator alpha 5 - truncates at 10 M rows |