MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACX+KaMz2ZoOojh0nQ6QNBYx8Ak1Dkoko=D4FSb80BYW+o8CHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <855988.1739816850@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAKFQuwZ+EsCJHmBVdHeJ2XUWUBSGtN8k2icrX2hrPR=m7sLNGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <861660.1739819589@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CACX+KaMiZaFWVxYzZ_Lw-EBKgiO5GEBHmHREqs=GDpM88hRqdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <908583.1739822263@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CA+TgmobSc_x6thvXZvHoni5Gs5-wsxyTRiOMKoeuX5br0PCtDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACX+KaPv4apqG3=Ef+FB9nn4C4cd6Z+604ej0PPOHKExH45u2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <934709.1739829723@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAKFQuwZThU_Z-Zw+3mr+ecp1BVOw777dp3nXU5-wTVk3kS10gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoZG71zBpLOfCGZqGhtp=88z6=YYhi54TEsCtKr3v+UpoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1243984.1739894558@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CA+Tgmob_W0iq9Kuugra3WYTO2429RMJ_+HkVukrXWOUN81QiEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1246906.1739896202@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <1246906.1739896202@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:16:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+TgmoZYM2az+yCWu5DBnV50N_BE9f1r8-Doy6-tZTySeb-s+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, Ayush Vatsa <ayushvatsa1810@gmail.com>, 
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoZYM2az%2ByCWu5DBnV50N_BE9f1r8-Doy6-tZTySeb-s%2BA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 11:30=E2=80=AFAM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote=
:
> I have no objection to it, but I wasn't as entirely convinced
> as you are that it's the only plausible answer.

Hmm, OK.

> One specific thing I'm slightly worried about is that a naive
> implementation would probably cause this function to lock the
> table after the index, risking deadlock against queries that
> take the locks in the more conventional order.  I don't recall
> what if anything we've done about that in other places
> (-ENOCAFFEINE).

Yeah, that seems like a good thing to worry about from an
implementation point of view but it doesn't seem like a reason to
question the basic design choice. In general, if you can use a table,
you also get to use its indexes, so that interpretation seems natural
to me here, also. Now, if somebody finds a problem with requiring only
SELECT permission, I could see changing the requirements for both
tables and indexes, but I find it harder to imagine that we'd want
those things to work differently from each other. Of course I'm
willing to be convinced that there's a good reason for them to be
different; I just can't currently imagine what it might be.

--=20
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com