| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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: | 2025-10-13 18:16:36 |
| Message-ID: | 67e077fcfe474ce7c56d36492d89c150768271e1.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2025-09-24 at 12:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Don't we do that intentionally, to make sure someone can't cause DOS
> on a table they have no privileges on?
Is this only a problem for strong locks (ShareLock or greater)?
Strong locks are a problem when you have a pattern like a long running
query that holds an AccessShareLock, and then an unprivileged user
requests an AccessExclusiveLock, forcing other queries to queue up
behind it, and the queue doesn't clear until the long running query
finishes.
But weaker locks don't seem to have that problem, right?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Barsky | 2025-10-13 19:19:04 | Re: Option on `postgres` CLI to shutdown when there are no more active connections? |
| Previous Message | Dominique Devienne | 2025-10-13 16:43:15 | Re: Option on `postgres` CLI to shutdown when there are no more active connections? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bryan Green | 2025-10-13 18:24:06 | Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect fprintf usage in log_error FRONTEND path |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-10-13 17:43:22 | Re: speedup COPY TO for partitioned table. |