Re: LOCK TABLE Permissions
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: LOCK TABLE Permissions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmob+SKNjK4FW81ejZpxOxsTVZJT8h_4u=xJyDb_-HBP7GQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: LOCK TABLE Permissions (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: >> if (lockmode == AccessShareLock) >> aclresult = pg_class_aclcheck(reloid, GetUserId(), >> ACL_SELECT); >> + else if (lockmode == RowExclusiveLock) >> + aclresult = pg_class_aclcheck(reloid, GetUserId(), >> + ACL_INSERT | ACL_UPDATE | ACL_DELETE | ACL_TRUNCATE); >> else >> aclresult = pg_class_aclcheck(reloid, GetUserId(), >> ACL_UPDATE | ACL_DELETE | ACL_TRUNCATE); > > Perhaps it would be better to refactor with a local variable for the > aclmask and just one instance of the pg_class_aclcheck call. Also, I'm > pretty sure that the documentation work needed is more extensive > than the actual patch ;-). Otherwise, I don't see a problem with this. I don't really care one way or the other whether we change this in master, but I think back-patching changes that loosen security restrictions is a poor idea. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: