Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 718744.1760390467@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes: > On Wed, 2025-09-24 at 12:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Don't we do that intentionally, to make sure someone can't cause DOS >> on a table they have no privileges on? > Is this only a problem for strong locks (ShareLock or greater)? > Strong locks are a problem when you have a pattern like a long running > query that holds an AccessShareLock, and then an unprivileged user > requests an AccessExclusiveLock, forcing other queries to queue up > behind it, and the queue doesn't clear until the long running query > finishes. > But weaker locks don't seem to have that problem, right? I don't think so. Even AccessShareLock is enough to block another session trying to acquire AccessExclusiveLock, and then not only have you DoS'd that session, but everything else trying to access the table will queue up behind the AccessExclusiveLock request. So it's only not-a-problem if nothing anywhere in the system wants non-sharable locks. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: