|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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
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.
|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)|