On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:54, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I'm a little worried by Stephen's plan, mainly because I'm concerned
> that it would lead to ALTER TABLE taking exclusive lock on a table long
> before it gets around to checking permissions. Still, that's just
> extending a window that exists now.
Im of the opinion if we are going to be meddling with the permission
checks in this area one of the goals should be close or at least
tighten up that window. So you cant lock a table you dont have
permission to (either via LOCK or ALTER TABLE). (Ignoring the issues
of concurrent permission changes of course...)