| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: new heapcheck contrib module |
| Date: | 2020-09-22 20:17:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=PYjiL=6badH+NNyvCM1_LstEhCLQd3arLQWPtMkAX5w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:41 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> But now I see that there's no secondary permission check in the
> verify_nbtree.c code. Is that intentional? Peter, what's the
> justification for that?
As noted by comments in contrib/amcheck/sql/check_btree.sql (the
verify_nbtree.c tests), this is intentional. Note that we explicitly
test that a non-superuser role can perform verification following
GRANT EXECUTE ON FUNCTION ... .
As I mentioned earlier, this is supported (or at least it is supported
in my interpretation of things). It just isn't documented anywhere
outside the test itself.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2020-09-22 20:42:33 | Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-22 20:11:01 | Re: Improper use about DatumGetInt32 |