| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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: | 2025-10-09 03:06:04 |
| Message-ID: | 8af53c6e8992aa706e63aafe60a3bcf100b524d1.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 11:52 -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 12:13:34PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > * RangeVarCallbackForReindexIndex() was checking privileges on
> > > the table
> > > before locking it, so I reversed it in 0002.
> >
> > Don't we do that intentionally, to make sure someone can't cause
> > DOS
> > on a table they have no privileges on?
>
> Ah, right. I switched it back in v4.
v4-0001 looks good to me.
Just to make sure I understand: the actual problem would only happen
with OID wraparound, right?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2025-10-09 03:28:01 | Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2025-10-08 19:54:44 | Re: Alerting on memory use and instance crash |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2025-10-09 03:10:31 | Re: Eager aggregation, take 3 |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2025-10-09 03:04:44 | Re: doc: Improve description of io_combine_limit and io_max_combine_limit GUCs |