A security invoker view checks permissions for accessing its
underlying base relations using the privileges of the user of the
view, rather than the privileges of the view owner. Additionally, if
any of the base relations are tables with RLS enabled, the policies of
the user of the view are applied, rather than those of the view owner.
This allows views to be defined without giving away additional
privileges on the underlying base relations, and matches a similar
feature available in other database systems.
It also allows views to operate more naturally with RLS, without
affecting the assignments of policies to users.
Christoph Heiss, with some additional hacking by me. Reviewed by
Laurenz Albe and Wolfgang Walther.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/b66dd6d6-ad3e-c6f2-8b90-47be773da240%40cybertec.at
The idea behind this patch is to make it possible to run individual
test scripts without running the entire core test suite. Making all
the scripts completely independent would involve a massive rewrite,
and would probably be worse for coverage of things like concurrent DDL.
So this patch just does what seems practical with limited changes.
The net effect is that any test script can be run after running
limited earlier dependencies:
* all scripts depend on test_setup
* many scripts depend on create_index
* other dependencies are few in number, and are documented in
the parallel_schedule file.
To accomplish this, I chose a small number of commonly-used tables
and moved their creation and filling into test_setup. Later scripts
are expected not to modify these tables' data contents, for fear of
affecting other scripts' results. Also, our former habit of declaring
all C functions in one place is now gone in favor of declaring them
where they're used, if that's just one script, or in test_setup if
necessary.
There's more that could be done to remove some of the remaining
inter-script dependencies, but significantly more-invasive changes
would be needed, and at least for now it doesn't seem worth it.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1114748.1640383217@sss.pgh.pa.us
Revert 59ab4ac32, as well as the followup fix 33862cb9c, in all
branches. We need to think a bit harder about what the behavior
of LOCK TABLE on views should be, and there's no time for that
before next week's releases. We'll take another crack at this
later.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16703-e348f58aab3cf6cc@postgresql.org
LOCK TABLE has complained about "infinite recursion" when applied
to a self-referential view, ever since we made it recurse into views
in v11. However, that breaks pg_dump's new assumption that it's
okay to lock every relation. There doesn't seem to be any good
reason to throw an error: if we just abandon the recursion, we've
still satisfied the requirement of locking every referenced relation.
Per bug #16703 from Andrew Bille (via Alexander Lakhin).
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/16703-e348f58aab3cf6cc@postgresql.org
The restriction that only tables and views can be locked by LOCK TABLE
is quite arbitrary, since the underlying mechanism can lock any relation
type. Drop the restriction so that programs such as pg_dump can lock
all relations they're interested in, preventing schema changes that
could cause a dump to fail after expending much effort.
Backpatch to 9.5.
Author: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Reported-by: Wells Oliver <wells.oliver@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20201021200659.GA32358@alvherre.pgsql
Previously, LOCK TABLE command through a parent table checked
the permissions on not only the parent table but also the children
tables inherited from it. This was a bug and inherited queries should
perform access permission checks on the parent table only. This
commit fixes LOCK TABLE so that it does not check the permission
on children tables.
This patch is applied only in the master branch. We decided not to
back-patch because it's not hard to imagine that there are some
applications expecting the old behavior and the change breaks their
security.
Author: Amit Langote
Reviewed-by: Fujii Masao
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHGQGwE+GauyG7POtRfRwwthAGwTjPQYdFHR97+LzA4RHGnJxA@mail.gmail.com
AclObjectKind was basically just another enumeration for object types,
and we already have a preferred one for that. It's only used in
aclcheck_error. By using ObjectType instead, we can also give some more
precise error messages, for example "index" instead of "relation".
Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic
operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and
architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic
ops.
For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain
both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or
similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get
tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API
provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All
properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback -
obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad
either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks
implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely
spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the
fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for
new ones.
The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently
provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform
efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also
provided.
To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for
a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be
implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags,
32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also
be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented
generically ontop of these.
The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have
been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for
* Intel icc
* HUPX acc
* IBM xlc
are included but have never been tested. These will likely require
fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback.
As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the
existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code.
Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa
Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera
Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com,
20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de,
20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
Dean Rasheed
Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera
Fujii Masao
Tatsuo Ishii
Peter Eisentraut
Andres Freund
Robert Haas