Re: FOR PORTION OF vs. object_aclcheck

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: Paul Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FOR PORTION OF vs. object_aclcheck
Date: 2026-05-13 12:13:09
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY7eL2GaAn8RMpSimyGo=-473U1X0zkzAnX-9TSp0MztA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 11:37 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
> If we assume the type support function approach, I think we don't
> normally check permissions on type support functions. It is implied
> that if you make use of a type, then the type support functions could be
> executed at any time without further permission checking.

I'm not totally sure we've made the right policy choice there, and I'm
also not sure that we're entirely consistent, but there's certainly
precedent for that approach.

> Maybe we should at least expand the comment to remind future developers
> of this concern, though?

Yeah, if we're not going to add a check, we should definitely write
something in the comment.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2026-05-13 12:22:53 Re: Add a greedy join search algorithm to handle large join problems
Previous Message Antonin Houska 2026-05-13 12:00:38 Re: Fix REPACK with WITHOUT OVERLAPS replica identity indexes