| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ted Yu <yuzhihong(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: allow granting CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW, and REINDEX |
| Date: | 2023-06-14 18:30:45 |
| Message-ID: | 9dc1b3fce809c5bc6592583910cd13a175a38ff6.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 14:12 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I've been reviewing ff9618e lately, and I'm wondering whether it has
> the
> same problem that 19de0ab solved. Specifically, ff9618e introduces
> has_partition_ancestor_privs(), which is used to check whether a user
> has
> MAINTAIN on any partition ancestors. This involves syscache lookups,
> and
> presently this function does not take any relation locks. I did
> spend some
> time trying to induce cache lookup errors, but I didn't have any
> luck.
> However, unless this can be made safe without too much trouble, I
> think I'm
> inclined to partially revert ff9618e, leaving the TOAST-related parts
> intact.
Agreed. Having it work on partition hierarchies is a nice-to-have, but
not central to the usability of the feature. If it's causing problems,
best to take that out and reconsider in 17 if worthwhile.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Corey Huinker | 2023-06-14 18:41:37 | Re: Should heapam_estimate_rel_size consider fillfactor? |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-06-14 18:17:11 | Re: allow granting CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW, and REINDEX |