On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:12 AM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Attached are some patches to get the discussion rolling: One patch makes
> allow_system_table_mods settable at run time by superuser, the second
> one is a test suite that documents the current behavior that I gathered
> after analyzing the source code, the third one removes some code that
> was found useless by the tests. (The first patch might be useful on its
> own, but right now it's just to facilitate the test suite.)
Sounds generally sensible (but I didn't read the code). I
particularly like the first idea.
> Any other thoughts?
I kinda feel like we should prohibit DML on system catalogs, even by
superusers, unless you press the big red button that says "I am
definitely sure that I know what I'm doing." Linking that with
allow_system_table_mods is some way seems natural, but I'm not totally
sure it's the right thing to do. I guess we could have
alter_table_system_mods={no,yes,yesyesyes}, the former allowing DML
and not-too-scary things and the latter allowing anything at all.
A related issue is that alter_system_table_mods prohibits both stuff
that's probably not going to cause any big problem and stuff that is
almost guaranteed to make the system permanently unusable - e.g. you
could 'SET STORAGE' on a system catalog column, which is really pretty
innocuous, or you could change the oid column of pg_database to a
varlena type, which is guaranteed to destroy the universe. Here
again, maybe some operations should be more protected than others, or
maybe the relatively safe things just shouldn't be subject to
allow_system_table_mods at all.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company