On 3/30/21 8:17 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 3/30/21 6:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
>>> Heh, I missed the forest for the trees it seems.
>>> That version undid the changes fixing what Ian was originally complaining about.
>>
>> Duh, right. It would be a good idea for there to be a code comment
>> explaining this, because it's *far* from obvious. Say like
>>
>> * Check for column-level privileges first. This serves in
>> * part as a check on whether the column even exists, so we
>> * need to do it before checking table-level privilege.
>
> Will do.
>
>> My gripe about providing API-spec comments for the new aclchk.c
>> entry points still stands. Other than that, I think it's good
>> to go.
>
> Yeah, I was planning to put something akin to this in all four spots:
> 8<-------------------
> /*
> * Exported routine for checking a user's access privileges to a table
> *
> * Does the bulk of the work for pg_class_aclcheck(), and allows other
> * callers to avoid the missing relation ERROR when is_missing is non-NULL.
> */
> AclResult
> pg_class_aclcheck_ext(Oid table_oid, Oid roleid,
> AclMode mode, bool *is_missing)
> ...
> 8<-------------------
Pushed that way.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
