From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: LOCK TABLE Permissions |
Date: | 2015-05-11 13:32:46 |
Message-ID: | 20150511133246.GW30322@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
All,
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > if (lockmode == AccessShareLock)
> > aclresult = pg_class_aclcheck(reloid, GetUserId(),
> > ACL_SELECT);
> > + else if (lockmode == RowExclusiveLock)
> > + aclresult = pg_class_aclcheck(reloid, GetUserId(),
> > + ACL_INSERT | ACL_UPDATE | ACL_DELETE | ACL_TRUNCATE);
> > else
> > aclresult = pg_class_aclcheck(reloid, GetUserId(),
> > ACL_UPDATE | ACL_DELETE | ACL_TRUNCATE);
>
> Perhaps it would be better to refactor with a local variable for the
> aclmask and just one instance of the pg_class_aclcheck call. Also, I'm
> pretty sure that the documentation work needed is more extensive
> than the actual patch ;-). Otherwise, I don't see a problem with this.
Now for a blast from the past... This came up again on IRC recently and
reminded me that I ran into the same issue a couple years back. Updated
patch includes the refactoring suggested and includes documentation.
Not going to be back-patched, as discussed with Robert.
Barring objections, I'll push this later today.
Thanks!
Stephen
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
locktable_insert_priv.patch | text/x-diff | 2.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2015-05-11 14:11:35 | Re: multixacts woes |
Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2015-05-11 13:00:55 | Re: EvalPlanQual behaves oddly for FDW queries involving system columns |