Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 08:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I've always thought that it was extremely shaky for LOCK to try to work
> > that way. With no lock, you have no confidence that the table isn't
> > changing or disappearing under you. In the worst case, the permissions
> > check might fail outright (likely with a "cache lookup failed" message
> > about a catalog row that disappeared as we attempted to fetch it); or it
> > might give an answer that's obsolete by the time we do acquire the lock.
>
> 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?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +