| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Li EF Zhang <bjzhangl(at)cn(dot)ibm(dot)com>, carpenter(dot)nail(dot)cz(at)gmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17157: authorizaiton of dict_int and bloom extention |
| Date: | 2021-08-26 14:04:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZftC_3qkJdnZzyxxKKeqaSwJqP-=Z=GMC89fXttgDbgQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 12:22 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> > 2. Will the fix for bloom be applied on pg13?
>
> I think that the commit b1d32d3e3 won't be backpatched to PG13 but
> this behavior seems like a bug to me. I would expect that "DROP
> EXTENSION trusted-bloom" by non-superuser owner succeeds if it’s a
> trusted extension. (“trusted-bloom” here means “bloom” extension you
> made trusted by changing the control file)
>
> Looking at the commit b1d32d3e3, the fact that that "DROP EXTENSION
> trusted-bloom” by non-superuser can drop the access method belonging
> to the extension seems like a side effect of this commit.
>
>
Yeah, I said much the same thing on the adjacent thread on this topic.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-08-26 14:07:12 | Re: Is Backgroundworker.bgw_restart_time is defined in seconds? |
| Previous Message | constzl | 2021-08-26 08:36:44 | Re:Re: Is Backgroundworker.bgw_restart_time is defined in seconds? |