| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ayush Vatsa <ayushvatsa1810(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes |
| Date: | 2025-02-18 15:13:03 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZG71zBpLOfCGZqGhtp=88z6=YYhi54TEsCtKr3v+UpoA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 5:18 PM David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I have a very vague recollection that we concluded that SELECT
>> privilege was a reasonable check because if you have that you
>> could manually prewarm by reading the table. That would lead
>> to the conclusion that the minimal fix is to look at the owning
>> table's privileges instead of the index's own privileges.
>
> I feel like if you can blow up the cache by loading an entire table into memory with just select privilege on the table we should be ok with allowing the same person to name an index on the same table and load it into the cache too.
+1.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-02-18 16:02:38 | Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes |
| Previous Message | Bowen Shi | 2025-02-18 06:47:09 | Re: pg_rewind - enable wal_log_hints or data-checksums |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-02-18 15:43:40 | Re: Why does exec_simple_query requires 2 snapshots |
| Previous Message | Vlada Pogozhelskaya | 2025-02-18 15:07:09 | Re: Improve statistics estimation considering GROUP-BY as a 'uniqueiser' |