From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Pierre Ducroquet <p(dot)psql(at)pinaraf(dot)info> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [Patch] Invalid permission check in pg_stats for functional indexes |
Date: | 2020-03-25 14:52:42 |
Message-ID: | 321f3da1-8b79-7866-69ea-f54e20264363@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Pierre,
On 12/26/19 6:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Awhile back I wrote:
>> Actually ... maybe we don't need to change the view definition at all,
>> but instead just make has_column_privilege() do something different
>> for indexes than it does for other relation types. It's dubious that
>> applying that function to an index yields anything meaningful today,
>> so we could redefine what it returns without (probably) breaking
>> anything. That would at least give us an option to back-patch, too,
>> though the end result might be complex enough that we don't care to
>> risk it.
>
> In hopes of resurrecting this thread, here's a draft patch that does
> it like that (and also fixes row_security_active(), as otherwise this
> probably creates a security hole in pg_stats).
Do you know when you will have a chance to look at this patch?
Tom made a suggestion up-thread about where the regression tests could go.
Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-03-25 15:06:56 | Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) |
Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2020-03-25 14:38:03 | Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) |