Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 09:46:33 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>,
	Pavel Luzanov <p.luzanov@postgrespro.ru>,
	Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: allow granting CLUSTER, REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW, and REINDEX
Message-ID: <ZIpfack6qJUHaw+g@paquier.xyz>
References: <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>
 <ZIj4v1CwqlDVJZfB@paquier.xyz>
 <20230613235442.GA222795@nathanxps13>
 <20230614181711.GA488295@nathanxps13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="d4entOgqs1SvOSZw"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230614181711.GA488295@nathanxps13>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZIpfack6qJUHaw%2Bg%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--d4entOgqs1SvOSZw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 11:17:11AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 04:54:42PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 08:16:15AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> So, yes, agreed about the removal of has_partition_ancestor_privs().
> >> I am adding an open item assigned to you and Jeff.
> >=20
> > Thanks.  I suspect there's more discussion incoming, but I'm hoping to
> > close this item one way or another by 16beta2.
>=20
> Concretely, I am proposing something like the attached patches.

The result after 0001 is applied is that a couple of
object_ownercheck() calls that existed before ff9618e are removed from
some ACL checks in the REINDEX, CLUSTER and VACUUM paths.  Is that OK
for shared relations and shouldn't cluster_is_permitted_for_relation()
include that?  vacuum_is_permitted_for_relation() is consistent on
this side.

Here are the paths that now differ:
cluster_rel
get_tables_to_cluster
get_tables_to_cluster_partitioned
RangeVarCallbackForReindexIndex
ReindexMultipleTables

0002 looks OK to retain the skip check for toast relations in the
VACUUM case.
--
Michael

--d4entOgqs1SvOSZw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Zx73
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--d4entOgqs1SvOSZw--