Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes

vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>

From: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Ayush Vatsa <ayushvatsa1810@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-03-16T13:00:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-general
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 at 03:27, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 03:01:41AM +0530, Ayush Vatsa wrote:
> > Maybe we can move ahead with the patch if we can see no other concerns.
>
> I think we should allow some time in case others want to review the patch.
> I do see a concern upthread about increased deadlock risk [0], but your
> patch doesn't lock the table, but unless I'm wrong [1] (which is always
> possible), it doesn't need to lock it.
>
> Anyway, here is a tidied up patch.

I noticed that Tom Lane's comment from [1] is not addressed. I'm
changing the commitfest entry status to Waiting on Author, Please
address them and update the status to Needs Review.
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/279947.1741535285%40sss.pgh.pa.us

Regards,
Vignesh



Commits

  1. Fix privilege checks for pg_prewarm() on indexes.

  2. Fix lookup code for REINDEX INDEX.

  3. Fix redefinition of typedef RangeVar.

  4. Fix lookups in pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats().

  5. dblink: Avoid locking relation before privilege check.