Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: BUG #1161: User permissions are kept, even if user is

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Martin <martin(at)4finger(dot)net>,PostgreSQL Bugs List <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #1161: User permissions are kept, even if user is
Date: 2004-06-09 14:04:22
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Dear Tom,

>> I was thinking that any integer attribute of any tuple in a shared
>> relation would be ok to store a sequence value.
> Certainly not --- when there are multiple versions of the tuple because
> of MVCC rules, which do you use?

I understand you concern, but I think the troubles depends on how the 
value is actually used. I agree it would not be a real sequence with 
nextval() and so, but the purpose is just to find an non already used 

The locking mecanism on the update of this special account would insure 
that the there is no possible conflict.

SELECT usesysid AS old_sysid_value
FROM pg_shadow WHERE usename='next_sysid' FOR UPDATE;

// iterate to find some new sysid starting from previous value

UPDATE usesysid = new_found_sysid WHERE usename='next_sysid';

INSERT new user with old_sysid_value;

So the concern I would see is more on the fact that there is a lock that 
would block concurrent "create user", especially if done in a long 
transaction, so IMHO this is performance/contention issue, but there is no 
real semantical issue. What is lost is the no-lock nature of the sequence 
update with nextval.

I'm not sure the performance would be a big trouble, because create user 
are not issued that often, and I would not expect them to appear within a 
large transaction.

Anyway I'm planing to hace a look at the real thing first (shared seq).
So no worry, and thanks for your question.

Fabien Coelho - coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-06-09 15:00:08
Subject: Re: BUG #1145: silent REVOKE failures
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-06-09 13:34:19
Subject: Re: BUG #1161: User permissions are kept, even if user is

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group