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

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes
Date
Msg-id Z8dcGMMP3-D5dobY@nathan
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes  (Ayush Vatsa <ayushvatsa1810@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 03:53:48PM +0530, Ayush Vatsa wrote:
> It seems there's a general consensus that we should maintain a
> original design to support pg_prewarm, with a minor adjustment:
> when querying indexes, we should verify the privileges of the parent table.
> 
> I´ve attached a patch for this, which includes some test cases as well.
> Let me know if it needs any changes.

+        tableOid = IndexGetRelation(relOid, false);
+        aclresult = pg_class_aclcheck(tableOid, GetUserId(), ACL_SELECT);

I'm wondering whether setting missing_ok to true is correct here.  IIUC we
should have an AccessShareLock on the index, but I don't know if that's
enough protection.  The only other similar coding pattern I'm aware of is
RangeVarCallbackForReindexIndex(), which sets missing_ok to false and
attempts to gracefully handle a missing table.  Of course, maybe that's
wrong, too.

Perhaps it's all close enough in practice.  If we get it wrong, you might
get a slightly less helpful error message when the table is concurrently
dropped, which isn't so bad.

-- 
nathan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel CREATE INDEX for GIN indexes
Next
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio
Date:
Subject: Re: Next commitfest app release is planned for March 18th