On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> It also seems my last explanation didn't convey the point. Yes, nearly every
> command has a different set of permissions checks. However, we don't benefit
> equally from performing each of those checks before acquiring a lock.
> Consider renameatt(), which checks three things: you must own the relation,
> the relation must be of a supported relkind, and the relation must not be a
> typed table. To limit opportunities for denial of service, let's definitely
> perform the ownership check before taking a lock. The other two checks can
> wait until we hold that lock. The benefit of checking them early is to avoid
> making a careless relation owner wait for a lock before discovering the
> invalidity of his command. That's nice as far as it goes, but let's not
> proliferate callbacks for such a third-order benefit.
I agree, but my point is that so far we have no callbacks that differ
only in that detail. I accept that we'd probably want to avoid that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
