Re: [EXT]: Re: BUG #18604: Regression in PostgreSQL 16.4: pg_dump Prevents Essential System Table Modifications
От | Basha |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [EXT]: Re: BUG #18604: Regression in PostgreSQL 16.4: pg_dump Prevents Essential System Table Modifications |
Дата | |
Msg-id | GV1P194MB2356014214267DDC379B98B3D89F2@GV1P194MB2356.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [EXT]: Re: BUG #18604: Regression in PostgreSQL 16.4: pg_dump Prevents Essential System Table Modifications (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
The code, provided is to recreate the problem if required. The access and barriers are taken care. Thanks,
Sent from Outlook for Android
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2024 1:24:59 AM
To: Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com>
Cc: Basha <Basha@maxcontact.com>; PostgreSQL Bug List <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT]: Re: BUG #18604: Regression in PostgreSQL 16.4: pg_dump Prevents Essential System Table Modifications
Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2024 1:24:59 AM
To: Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com>
Cc: Basha <Basha@maxcontact.com>; PostgreSQL Bug List <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT]: Re: BUG #18604: Regression in PostgreSQL 16.4: pg_dump Prevents Essential System Table Modifications
[You don't often get email from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> writes:
> You've really stepped outside what is considered supported behavior here. That it worked at all was more accidental than a documented and supported feature. Shadowing system catalogs with views *is* going to break things, and that `allow_system_table_mods` has that potential is documented. I'm sure this is frustrating, but it's extremely unlikely that this will be considered a regression worth undoing a security fix for.
Indeed. You might look into enforcing the restriction you want
by attaching an RLS policy to pg_database, instead of this hack.
Mind you, we are unlikely to consider that supported either if push
comes to shove. But it would at least dodge your immediate problem.
(I'll just note that this implementation is full of holes anyway: you
didn't mark the view as a security_barrier view, and that treatment of
tableoid is hardly transparent. And I do hope that your real recipe
includes revoking public read access on pg_database_catalog.)
regards, tom lane
Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> writes:
> You've really stepped outside what is considered supported behavior here. That it worked at all was more accidental than a documented and supported feature. Shadowing system catalogs with views *is* going to break things, and that `allow_system_table_mods` has that potential is documented. I'm sure this is frustrating, but it's extremely unlikely that this will be considered a regression worth undoing a security fix for.
Indeed. You might look into enforcing the restriction you want
by attaching an RLS policy to pg_database, instead of this hack.
Mind you, we are unlikely to consider that supported either if push
comes to shove. But it would at least dodge your immediate problem.
(I'll just note that this implementation is full of holes anyway: you
didn't mark the view as a security_barrier view, and that treatment of
tableoid is hardly transparent. And I do hope that your real recipe
includes revoking public read access on pg_database_catalog.)
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: