Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 15:59:32 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: vaibhave postgres <postgresvaibhave@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, vsekar@microsoft.com
Subject: Re: vacuumdb: permission denied for schema "pg_temp_7"
Message-ID: <Zu3iMzfiGBTbg3iy@nathan>
References: 
 <CAM_eQjwfAR=y3G1fGyS1U9FTmc+FyJm9amNfY2QCZBnDDbNPZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240920190731.37.nmisch@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240920190731.37.nmisch@google.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Zu3iMzfiGBTbg3iy%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 12:07:31PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> v12 introduced this regression.  I suspect it started when commit e0c2933 "Use
> catalog query to discover tables to process in vacuumdb" switched vacuumdb
> from a simple "VACUUM;" command to per-table commands.  Non-superuser vacuumdb
> must be rare indeed for this to go unnoticed long enough to leave all
> supported branches affected.

I think the bug actually predates that commit, but it was only broken when
--jobs > 1.  Commit e0c2933 just broke the --jobs == 1 case, too.

> That helps, but we'd probably want to do something more general about vacuumdb
> and schema USAGE permission.

Hm.  I think filtering out schemas for which you lack USAGE makes sense
when neither --schema nor --table are specified, but if the user lists an
object they can't vacuum, we should probably fail.  My current thinking is
that we could still filter when --exclude-schema is used, but I'm curious
what others think.

You might also be interested in this thread about VACUUM and USAGE [0].

> Thanks for the report.

+1

[0] https://postgr.es/m/flat/56596b81-088f-4c0c-9a88-b5f27a7a62e9%40oss.nttdata.com

-- 
nathan