Message-ID: <31a67adbb10b85ff7cddeafe75b9f6505c902e57.camel@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Ayush Vatsa <ayushvatsa1810@gmail.com>, 
 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "David G. Johnston"
 <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers
 <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 11:31:03 -0700
In-Reply-To: <aOkzoH-pXdBr0ewf@nathan>
References: <Z8zwVmGzXyDdkAXj@nathan> <279947.1741535285@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	 <Z88CB-vDehJ9rW8u@nathan> <aNQVIVKarUipPcnW@nathan>
	 <3432170.1758730414@sss.pgh.pa.us> <aNQhuRQfD3PlpeuT@nathan>
	 <8af53c6e8992aa706e63aafe60a3bcf100b524d1.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <7b0e2774cdcc8f522ac82f64a8d7266f353a5094.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <aOfXNAFkj_EFm-8q@nathan> <aOgmi6avE6qMw_6t@nathan>
	 <aOkzoH-pXdBr0ewf@nathan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.52.3-0ubuntu1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/31a67adbb10b85ff7cddeafe75b9f6505c902e57.camel%40j-davis.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2025-10-10 at 11:26 -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 04:18:03PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > There's a similar pattern in get_rel_from_relname() in dblink.c,
> > which also
> > seems to only be used with an AccessShareLock (like pg_prewarm).=C2=A0
> > My best
> > guess from reading lots of code, commit messages, and old e-mails
> > in the
> > archives is that the original check-privileges-before-locking work
> > was
> > never completed.

Interesting, thank you for the analysis.

> > I'm currently leaning towards continuing with v4 of the patch set.=C2=
=A0
> > 0001
> > and 0003 are a little weird in that a concurrent change could lead
> > to a
> > "could not find parent table" ERROR, but IIUC that is an extremely
> > remote
> > possibility.
>=20
> After sleeping on it, I still think this is the right call.=C2=A0 In any
> case,
> I've spent way too much time on this stuff, so I plan to commit the
> attached soon.

I'm OK with that. v5-0001 is an improvement over the current situation.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis