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 a lot!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
