On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 11:30 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I have no objection to it, but I wasn't as entirely convinced > as you are that it's the only plausible answer.
Hmm, OK. > One specific thing I'm slightly worried about is that a naive > implementation would probably cause this function to lock the > table after the index, risking deadlock against queries that > take the locks in the more conventional order. I don't recall > what if anything we've done about that in other places > (-ENOCAFFEINE). Yeah, that seems like a good thing to worry about from an implementation point of view but it doesn't seem like a reason to question the basic design choice. In general, if you can use a table, you also get to use its indexes, so that interpretation seems natural to me here, also. Now, if somebody finds a problem with requiring only SELECT permission, I could see changing the requirements for both tables and indexes, but I find it harder to imagine that we'd want those things to work differently from each other. Of course I'm willing to be convinced that there's a good reason for them to be different; I just can't currently imagine what it might be. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
