Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jeff Janes
Тема Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks
Дата
Msg-id CAMkU=1wCcMtsUfLXRbyqWj12NKmuy-OYtV3Uqg7sjwBzcABmGg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw super user checks  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK.  And if you want the first one, you can wrap it in a view currently, but
> if it were changed I don't know what you would do if you want the 2nd one
> (other than having every user create their own set of foreign tables).  So I
> guess the current situation is more flexible.

So where does that leave this patch? 

Sorry, I thought we were just having a digression.  I didn't think that part was about this patch specifically, but what more could be done later.
 
I don't think it makes this
patch a bad idea, although I kind of lean towads the view that the
patch should just be checking superuser_arg(), not superuser() ||
superuser_arg().

I don't see a reason to block a directly-logged-in superuser from using a mapping.  I asked in the closed list whether the current (released)  behavior was a security bug, and the answer was no.  And I don't know why else to block superusers from doing something other than as a security bug.  Also it would create a backwards compatibility hazard to revoke the ability now.

Cheers,

Jeff

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updatedtuple
Следующее
От: Ashutosh Bapat
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables