| From: | Ayush Vatsa <ayushvatsa1810(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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: | 2025-03-08 21:31:41 |
| Message-ID: | CACX+KaP+6U9jf=GT4wpR7TvRvSMtTAhz=vP2Zr+ZdUFVZzqNsA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> From a quick test and skim of the relevant
> code, I think your patch is fine, though
Thanks for reviewing.
> And IIUC
> DROP TABLE first acquires a lock on the table and its dependent objects
> (e.g., indexes) before any actual deletions, so AFAICT there's no problem
> with using it in pg_class_aclcheck() and get_rel_name(), either.
True, I have also verified that from [1], hence I think we are safe here.
Maybe we can move ahead with the patch if we can see no other concerns.
[1]
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/backend/catalog/dependency.c#L398-L430
Thanks,
Ayush Vatsa
SDE AWS
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-03-08 21:57:25 | Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-03-08 21:08:02 | Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-03-08 21:39:15 | Printing window function OVER clauses in EXPLAIN |
| Previous Message | Joseph Koshakow | 2025-03-08 21:28:59 | Re: Assert when executing query on partitioned table |