On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> Except that the proposed names aren't remotely like that... ;).
> Revision attached -- V5. We now REVOKE ALL on both functions, as
> Robert suggested, instead of the previous approach of having a
> hard-coded superuser check with enforcement.
>> And I proposed documenting named parameters, and
>> check_btree(performing_check_requiring_exclusive_locks => true) is just
>> about as expressive.
> I have not done this, nor have I renamed the functions. I still think
> that this is something that we can fix by adding a boolean argument to
> each function in the future, or something along those lines. I
> *really* hate the idea of having one function with non-obvious,
> variable requirements on locking, with locking implications that are
> not knowable when we PREPARE an SQL statement calling the function. It
> also removes a useful way of have superusers discriminate against the
> stronger locking variant bt_index_parent_check() by not granting
> execute on it (as an anti-footgun measure).

I think Andres is more or less correct that
"performing_check_requiring_exclusive_locks => true" is just about as
expressive as calling a different function, but I think that your
point that the superuser might want to grant access to one function
but not the other is a good one.  On the other hand, I think Andres
has a concern that we might have more modes in the future and we don't
want to end up with 2^n entrypoints.  That also seems valid.  Hmm.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to