Re: Lock conflict behavior?
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Lock conflict behavior? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1232579332.3578.91.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Lock conflict behavior? (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Lock conflict behavior?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 17:39 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > It looks like it would be easy enough to throw a better error message > > than that, e.g. with a try/catch. The information could be obsolete, but > > if it succeeds, it would at least mean they had permissions at some time > > in the past. > > > > Or, we could just remove the ACL checks from LOCK TABLE, so that it's at > > least consistent. Mostly it's the inconsistency that bothers me. > > Is this a TODO? I don't feel too strongly about it. I would feel better if we were consistent about the permissions checks, because there's less of a chance for confusion or a false sense of security. If we keep the permission check in LockTableCommand(), I can make a patch that produces a more useful error message when the table is removed right before the pg_class_aclcheck(). Right now it does: ERROR: relation with OID 16542 does not exist which is undesirable. Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: