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
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 |
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 |