Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Ayush Vatsa <ayushvatsa1810(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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: 2025-03-10 15:15:19
Message-ID: Z88CB-vDehJ9rW8u@nathan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 11:48:05AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 05:17:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> ReindexIndex() faces this same problem and solves it with some
>>> very complex code that manages to get the table's lock first.
>
>> I noticed that amcheck's bt_index_check_internal() handles this problem,
>> ...
>> stats_lock_check_privileges() does something similar, but it's not as
>> cautious about the "heapid != IndexGetRelation(indrelid, false)" race
>> condition.
>
> Egad, we've already got three inconsistent implementations of this
> functionality? I think the first step must be to unify them into
> a common implementation, if at all possible.

Agreed. I worry that trying to unify each bespoke implementation into a
single function might result in an unwieldy mess, but I'll give it a
shot...

--
nathan

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Igor Korot 2025-03-10 16:21:49 Big script execution
Previous Message Achilleas Mantzios - cloud 2025-03-10 09:52:47 Re: exclusion constraint question

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2025-03-10 15:16:02 Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2025-03-10 15:08:49 Re: vacuumdb changes for stats import/export