Re: table partitioning and access privileges

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 9:39 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2020/01/31 13:38, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 1:28 AM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Fair enough. I finally did back-patch because the behavior is clearly
> >> documented and I failed to hear the opinions to object the back-patch.
> >> But I should have heard and discussed such risks more.
> >>
> >> I'm OK to revert all those back-patch. Instead, probably the document
> >> should be updated in old branches.
> >
> > I could find only this paragraph in the section on inheritance that
> > talks about how access permissions work:
> >
> > 9.4:
> >
> > "Note how table access permissions are handled. Querying a parent
> > table can automatically access data in child tables without further
> > access privilege checking. This preserves the appearance that the data
> > is (also) in the parent table. Accessing the child tables directly is,
> > however, not automatically allowed and would require further
> > privileges to be granted."
> >
> > 9.5-12:
> >
> > "Inherited queries perform access permission checks on the parent
> > table only. Thus, for example, granting UPDATE permission on the
> > cities table implies permission to update rows in the capitals table
> > as well, when they are accessed through cities. This preserves the
> > appearance that the data is (also) in the parent table. But the
> > capitals table could not be updated directly without an additional
> > grant. In a similar way, the parent table's row security policies (see
> > Section 5.7) are applied to rows coming from child tables during an
> > inherited query. A child table's policies, if any, are applied only
> > when it is the table explicitly named in the query; and in that case,
> > any policies attached to its parent(s) are ignored."
> >
> > Do you mean that the TRUNCATE exception should be noted here?
>
> Yes, that's what I was thinking.

Okay. How about the attached?

Maybe, we should also note the LOCK TABLE exception?

Regards,
Amit