Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 10:15:19 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Ayush Vatsa <ayushvatsa1810@gmail.com>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes
Message-ID: <Z88CB-vDehJ9rW8u@nathan>
References: <CA+TgmoZYM2az+yCWu5DBnV50N_BE9f1r8-Doy6-tZTySeb-s+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACX+KaNAbOzePn710EtzH9F5xiUdBC+u59=UMab=Wr8jgDKQtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Z8dcGMMP3-D5dobY@nathan>
 <CACX+KaO4R9QDxbPSxSB0jNXFsqA6Jf=UPS+tyUvT_YvuP_grVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Z8yxsm9ZWVkHlPbV@nathan>
 <CACX+KaP+6U9jf=GT4wpR7TvRvSMtTAhz=vP2Zr+ZdUFVZzqNsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Z8y9RTT-vU6oVI_Y@nathan>
 <149429.1741472260@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <Z8zwVmGzXyDdkAXj@nathan>
 <279947.1741535285@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <279947.1741535285@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z88CB-vDehJ9rW8u%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 11:48:05AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 05:17:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> ReindexIndex() faces this same problem and solves it with some
>>> very complex code that manages to get the table's lock first.
> 
>> I noticed that amcheck's bt_index_check_internal() handles this problem,
>> ...
>> stats_lock_check_privileges() does something similar, but it's not as
>> cautious about the "heapid != IndexGetRelation(indrelid, false)" race
>> condition.
> 
> Egad, we've already got three inconsistent implementations of this
> functionality?  I think the first step must be to unify them into
> a common implementation, if at all possible.

Agreed.  I worry that trying to unify each bespoke implementation into a
single function might result in an unwieldy mess, but I'll give it a
shot...

-- 
nathan