Re: Tighten ACL check in repack_is_permitted_for_relation()

Hello

On 2026-Aug-04, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:

> repack_is_permitted_for_relation() uses pg_class_aclcheck_ext() to
> silently skip a concurrently-dropped relation. That's wrong for a
> caller that may already hold a lock on the relation whose ACL is
> checked, where missing a relation is not fine, and it makes the
> single-relation REPACK cases more brittle
> (https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/akPhEffRipH4isWF@nathan) So
> only detect a missing relation where that's expected, following the
> fix for vacuum_is_permitted_for_relation() in commit 824d5f6.

That makes sense. I think "missing OK" is a bit weird as an argument
here though; I prefer it as "already locked", inverting the boolean.
What do you think of this formulation?

--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Learn about compilers. Then everything looks like either a compiler or
a database, and now you have two problems but one of them is fun."
https://twitter.com/thingskatedid/status/1456027786158776329