Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From vignesh C
Subject Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes
Date
Msg-id CALDaNm3OD4t5z+GFhrYZooESuS3RDxNn1e9EWPiMBN7du-KGuA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: Why doesn't GiST VACUUM require a super-exclusive lock, like nbtree VACUUM?
Next
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: FSM doesn't recover after zeroing damaged page.