From: | "Gurjeet Singh" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "PGSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A question about ExplainOnePlan() |
Date: | 2006-12-13 16:10:23 |
Message-ID: | 65937bea0612130810n35955491wac64b4c2d4e84f57@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/13/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> "Gurjeet Singh" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Can we avoid calls to Executor{Start|End}() here, or is it necessary
> to
> > call them even for non-ANALYZE case?
>
> No; at least not unless you want to duplicate the permission-checking
> machinery inside ExecutorStart.
I had seen the ExecCheckRTPerms() call inside InitPlan(), but didn't know
that we considered even the EXPLAIN output to be so sensitive.
Otherwise EXPLAIN could be used to
> obtain information about tables you're not supposed to be able to read
> (for instance, the estimated number of rows matching a WHERE condition
> could be sensitive information).
>
> Also, you'd have to uglify explain.c quite a lot to be able to handle
> the case of traversing a plan tree without a matching planstate tree.
Thanks.
--
gurjeet[(dot)singh](at)EnterpriseDB(dot)com
singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | hotmail | yahoo }.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-13 16:23:14 | Re: Plan invalidation plans |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-13 16:00:49 | Re: A question about ExplainOnePlan() |