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.
--
Michael
