Message-ID: <f0228b6529eb2fcdaff639e0a37f0598f5c00d4a.camel@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix search_path to a safe value during maintenance
 operations.
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Jeff Davis
 <jdavis@postgresql.org>, "pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org"
 <pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org>, Laurenz Albe
 <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 13:55:13 -0700
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKFQuwY3AxtE+FT8P3RWGyWz33jQZaShdpD1An7SR5BuvmKFYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1q7j7Y-000z1H-Hr@gemulon.postgresql.org>
	 <89a415b86d5421941e4281ba5bf6288934078624.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <d20864b929ff769a0ebf772359719f05bb6982cd.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <573014.1686375211@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	 <20230612170510.GA201972@gust.leadboat.com>
	 <f53df2dbe11bb42764bcdd003a54aa29c9bb6137.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <CAKFQuwaVJkM9u+qpOaom2UkPE1sz0BASF-E5amxWPxncUhm4Hw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAKFQuwYocyEvpC=_0BgG3t9DVXNmzrWqBTLEov9zy4qW1239yg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <32747058519a68f099ac175a3a4bde4ba7cebb22.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <CAKFQuwY3AxtE+FT8P3RWGyWz33jQZaShdpD1An7SR5BuvmKFYw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.4-0ubuntu1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f0228b6529eb2fcdaff639e0a37f0598f5c00d4a.camel%40j-davis.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 13:22 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> This is the specific (first?) message I am recalling.
>=20
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B538=
03F5A%40ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at

The most objection seems to be expressed most succinctly in this
message:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/16134.1456767564%40sss.pgh.pa.us

"if we allow non-owners to run ANALYZE, they'd be able to mess things
up by setting the stats target either much lower or much higher than
the table owner expected"

I have trouble seeing much of a problem here if there is an explicit
MAINTAIN privilege. If you grant someone MAINTAIN to someone, it's not
surprising that you need to coordinate maintenance-related settings
with that user; and if you don't, then it's not surprising that the
statistics could get messed up.

Perhaps the objections in that thread were because the proposal
involved inferring the privilege to ANALYZE from other privileges,
rather than having an explicit MAINTAIN privilege?

Regards,
	Jeff Davis