Message-ID: <9dc1b3fce809c5bc6592583910cd13a175a38ff6.camel@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: allow granting CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW, and REINDEX
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>, Pavel Luzanov <p.luzanov@postgrespro.ru>, 
	Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:30:45 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20230613211246.GA219055@nathanxps13>
References: <20221217060408.GA1256247@nathanxps13>
	 <CALte62zW+s+V3fDUxP2ZYk2f=DZsyZO-Aa_bbiA39=wrz=UHuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20221218233018.GA1476904@nathanxps13>
	 <20230103234549.GA289060@nathanxps13>
	 <20230109225157.GA1288965@nathanxps13>
	 <7d2a8b72e23c8236281c6e00ae790327f965a8e5.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <20230113203334.GA2206335@nathanxps13>
	 <e25c84fafae4eb08d8a6e83207678096bac102d6.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <20230113225626.GA2380176@nathanxps13>
	 <20230113231339.GA2422750@nathanxps13>
	 <20230613211246.GA219055@nathanxps13>
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/9dc1b3fce809c5bc6592583910cd13a175a38ff6.camel%40j-davis.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 14:12 -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I've been reviewing ff9618e lately, and I'm wondering whether it has
> the
> same problem that 19de0ab solved.=C2=A0 Specifically, ff9618e introduces
> has_partition_ancestor_privs(), which is used to check whether a user
> has
> MAINTAIN on any partition ancestors.=C2=A0 This involves syscache lookups=
,
> and
> presently this function does not take any relation locks.=C2=A0 I did
> spend some
> time trying to induce cache lookup errors, but I didn't have any
> luck.
> However, unless this can be made safe without too much trouble, I
> think I'm
> inclined to partially revert ff9618e, leaving the TOAST-related parts
> intact.

Agreed. Having it work on partition hierarchies is a nice-to-have, but
not central to the usability of the feature. If it's causing problems,
best to take that out and reconsider in 17 if worthwhile.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis