On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 11:17:11AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 04:54:42PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 08:16:15AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> So, yes, agreed about the removal of has_partition_ancestor_privs(). > >> I am adding an open item assigned to you and Jeff. > > > > Thanks. I suspect there's more discussion incoming, but I'm hoping to > > close this item one way or another by 16beta2. > > Concretely, I am proposing something like the attached patches.
The result after 0001 is applied is that a couple of object_ownercheck() calls that existed before ff9618e are removed from some ACL checks in the REINDEX, CLUSTER and VACUUM paths. Is that OK for shared relations and shouldn't cluster_is_permitted_for_relation() include that? vacuum_is_permitted_for_relation() is consistent on this side. Here are the paths that now differ: cluster_rel get_tables_to_cluster get_tables_to_cluster_partitioned RangeVarCallbackForReindexIndex ReindexMultipleTables 0002 looks OK to retain the skip check for toast relations in the VACUUM case. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
