On 2021-06-08 11:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 11:13:40AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
>>> However +1 for the patch, as it seems more consistent to always get a
>>> permission failure if you're not a superuser.
>>
>> Yeah, it's just weird if such a check is not the first thing
>> in the function. Even if you can convince yourself that the
>> actions taken before that don't create any security issue today,
>> it's not hard to imagine that innocent future code rearrangements
>> could break that argument. What's the value of postponing the
>> check anyway?
>
> Thanks for the input, I have applied the patch.
Thanks for your modification!
BTW, I did the same thing in another patch I'm proposing[1], so I'll fix
that as well.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/c6682a25f3f0e9bd520707342219eac5%40oss.nttdata.com
Regards,
--
Atsushi Torikoshi
NTT DATA CORPORATION
