Re: Broken lock management in policy.c.

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Broken lock management in policy.c.
Date: 2016-01-04 03:01:18
Message-ID: CAM3SWZSk+oP3qZAgHgQrMd0QLA2zQngr-1wu+XNb28L=ZkW4pg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> A security defined function could be used to address that, of course. That
> could have performance implications, naturally.

True.

I would also advise only referencing a single relation within the
SELECT FOR UPDATE.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-01-04 03:23:34 Re: 9.5 BLOCKER: regrole and regnamespace and quotes
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-01-04 03:00:50 Re: row_security GUC does not behave as documented