Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> On Mar 6, 2022, at 2:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> ... Or, if that's our position, why are there
>> per-GUC changes at all, rather than just redefining what the
>> context values mean? (That is, why not redefine USERSET and
>> SUSET as simply indicating the default ACL to be applied if there's
>> no entry in the catalog.)
> To my knowledge, there is no mechanism to revoke an implicit privilege. You can revoke a privilege explicitly listed
inan aclitem[], but only if the privilege is being tracked that way.
So? What I'm suggesting is along the lines of
(1) pg_setting_acl starts out empty, or at least mostly empty (maybe
there are a few GUCs that need custom values).
(2) If there's a pg_setting_acl entry for a GUC that's to be set,
we apply it: either it grants the desired permission or it doesn't.
(3) If there's no entry, then for a USERSET GUC we assume that the
entry would be like "=s/postgres", while for any other context value
we assume the ACL grants nothing.
I don't think this is materially different from what we do with
permissions on (say) functions. If you want to revoke the public
SET privilege on some USERSET variable, you instantiate the default
and then revoke. You end up with an empty ACL stored in pg_setting_acl,
and voila.
It'd likely be necessary to refuse to record a grant/revoke on
an unknown GUC, since if we don't know the GUC then we can't know
what the relevant default ACL ought to be. But I bet your existing
patch has some dubious behavior in that case too.
regards, tom lane