Re: Proposal: knowing detail of config files via SQL

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: Proposal: knowing detail of config files via SQL
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmobnmuJdeO3H4x-mkC9ZK6K3-wroqRQx=WFSpOiT_LbcXg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Proposal: knowing detail of config files via SQL  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Ответы Re: Proposal: knowing detail of config files via SQL  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Re: Proposal: knowing detail of config files via SQL  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> While this generally "works", the usual expectation is that functions
> that should be superuser-only have a check in the function rather than
> depending on the execute privilege.  I'm certainly happy to debate the
> merits of that approach, but for the purposes of this patch, I'd suggest
> you stick an if (!superuser()) ereport("must be superuser") into the
> function itself and not work about setting the correct permissions on
> it.

-1.  If that policy exists at all, it's a BAD policy, because it
prevents users from changing the permissions using DDL.  I think the
superuser check should be inside the function, when, for example, it
masks some of the output data depending on the user's permissions.
But I see little virtue in handicapping an attempt by a superuser to
grant SELECT rights on pg_file_settings.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: autogenerated column names + views are a dump hazard
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: POLA violation with \c service=