Re: On login trigger: take three

út 15. 12. 2020 v 15:06 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru> napsal:

On 15.12.2020 16:18, Pavel Stehule wrote:

út 15. 12. 2020 v 14:12 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru> napsal:

On 11.12.2020 19:27, Pavel Stehule wrote:

pá 11. 12. 2020 v 17:05 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru> napsal:

On 11.12.2020 18:40, Pavel Stehule wrote:

is not correct. It makes it not possible to superuser to disable triggers for all users.

pg_database_ownercheck returns true for superuser always.

Sorry, but I consider different case: when normal user is connected to the database.
In this case pg_database_ownercheck returns false and trigger is not disabled, isn't it?

My idea was to reduce necessary rights to database owners.  But you have a true, so only superuser can create event trigger, so this feature cannot be used in DBaaS environments, and then my original idea was wrong.

Also GUCs are not associated with any database. So I do not understand why  this check of database ownership is relevant at all?

What kind of protection violation we want to prevent?

It seems to be obvious that normal user should not be able to prevent trigger execution because this triggers may be used to enforce some security policies.
If trigger was created by user itself, then it can drop or disable it using ALTER statement. GUC is not needed for it.

when you cannot connect to the database, then you cannot do ALTER. In DBaaS environments lot of users has not superuser rights.

But only superusers can set login triggers, right?
So only superuser can make a mistake in this trigger. But he have enough rights to recover this error. Normal users are not able to define on connection triggers and
should not have rights to disable them.

yes, it is true

Pavel

-- 
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company 

So what's next?
I see three options:

1. Do not introduce GUC for disabling all event triggers (especially taken in account that them are  disabled by default).
Return back to the patch on_connect_event_trigger_WITH_SUGGESTED_UPDATES.patch with "disable_client_connection_trigger"
and make it true by default (to eliminate any overhead for users which are not using on logintriggers).

2. Have two GUCS: "disable_client_connection_trigger" and "disable_event_triggers".

3. Implement some mechanism for caching presence of event triggers in shared memory.

@3 is the best design (the things should work well by default), @2 is a little bit chaotic and @1 looks like a workaround.

Please notice that we still need GUC to disable on-login triggers: to make it possible for superuser who did mistake and defined incorrect on-login trigger to
login to the system.
Do we need GUC to disable all other event triggers? May be I am wrong, but I do not see much need in such GUC: error in any of such event triggers is non fatal
and can be easily reverted.
So the only question is whether "disable_client_connection_trigger" should be true by default or not...

I agree with you that @2 is a little bit chaotic and @1 looks like a workaround.
But from my point of view @3 is not the best solution but overkill: maintaining yet another shared hash just to save few milliseconds on login seems to be too high price.
Actually there are many things which are loaded by new backend from the database on start: for example - catalog.
This is why launch of new backend is an expensive operation.
Certainly if we execute "select 1", then system catalog is not needed...
But does anybody start new backend just to execute "select 1" and exit?

I understand so the implementation of a new shared cache can be a lot of work. The best way is enhancing pg_database about one column with information about the login triggers (dathaslogontriggers). In init time these data are in syscache, and can be easily checked. Some like pg_attribute have an atthasdef column.  Same fields has pg_class - relhasrules, relhastriggers, ... Then the overhead of this design should be really zero.

What do you think about it?

-- 
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company