Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 11:05:32 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>, 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>
Subject: Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes
Message-ID: <aO50zOmoRFnB9_IX@nathan>
References: <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>
 <31a67adbb10b85ff7cddeafe75b9f6505c902e57.camel@j-davis.com>
 <aO1TaPd0YesHy5Sn@nathan>
 <bd0826223bff21bd2ad3d0b1520ee8429568c526.camel@j-davis.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <bd0826223bff21bd2ad3d0b1520ee8429568c526.camel@j-davis.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aO50zOmoRFnB9_IX%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

Thanks for reviewing.

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 07:23:36PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> The unlikely scenarios are a bit confusing. I'd probably error for
> either case. Also, the error message on the second scenario is wrong if
> the previous lookup was a table, I think.

Yeah, I think that's a better idea.

> IIUC this is locking before the privilege check. Is there a reason why
> we think this is OK here (and in amcheck_lock_relation_and_check()) but
> not for the stats?

For amcheck, AFAICT there aren't actually any ACL checks within the code
because the function is restricted to superuser by default.  For
pg_prewarm, I don't know.  You do have to install the extension before
using it, but once installed, it's available to everyone by default.  My
guess is that it just hasn't been a problem in the field.

Regardless, fixing the lock-before-privilege-checks behavior doesn't strike
me as a bug, so I think we ought to proceed with something like 0003 for
back-patching purposes and then to rework it further for v19.  Does that
sound okay to you?

>> * 0004 is a small patch to teach dblink to use
>> RangeVarGetRelidExtended().  I believe this code predates that
>> function.  I don't intend to back-patch this one.
> 
> Looks good.

I'm going to go commit this one now to get it out of the way.

-- 
nathan