Обсуждение: fix schema ownership for database owner on first connection
Dear patchers,
Please find attached a patch to fix schema ownership on first connection,
so that non system schemas reflect the database owner.
(1) It adds a new "datisinit" attribute to pg_database, which tells
whether the database initialization was performed or not.
The documentation is updated accordingly.
(2) This boolean is tested in postinit.c:ReverifyMyDatabase,
and InitializeDatabase is called if necessary.
(3) The routine updates pg_database datisinit, as well as pg_namespace
ownership and acl stuff.
(4) Some validation is added. This part validates for me
(although rules and errors regression tests are broken in current
cvs head, independtly of this patch).
Some questions/comments :
- is the place for the first connection housekeeping updates appropriate?
it seems so from ReverifyMyDatabase comments, but these are only comments.
- it is quite convenient to use SPI_* stuff for this very rare updates,
but I'm not that confident about the issue... On the other hand, the
all-C solution would result in a much longer and less obvious code:-(
- it is unclear to me whether it should be allowed to skip this under
some condition, when the database is accessed in "debug" mode from
a standalone postgres for instance?
- also I'm wondering how to react (what to do and how to do it) on
errors within or under these initialization. For instance, how to
be sure that the CurrentUser is reset as expected?
Thanks in advance for any comments.
Have a nice day.
--
Fabien.
Вложения
Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
> (2) This boolean is tested in postinit.c:ReverifyMyDatabase,
> and InitializeDatabase is called if necessary.
And what happens if multiple backends try to connect at the same time?
> (4) Some validation is added. This part validates for me
> (although rules and errors regression tests are broken in current
> cvs head, independtly of this patch).
I do not think it's a good idea for the regression tests to do anything
to any databases other than regression. Especially not databases with
names that might match people's real databases.
regards, tom lane
Dear Tom, >> (2) This boolean is tested in postinit.c:ReverifyMyDatabase, >> and InitializeDatabase is called if necessary. > > And what happens if multiple backends try to connect at the same time? I took care of that one! There is a lock on the update of pg_database when switching off datisinit. The backend which gets the lock is to update the schema ownership, and others will wait for the lock to be released, and skip the stuff. I don't think I forgot something, but I may be wrong. Also, as I noted I used SPI internally to do that simply with sql. I don't know if this is an issue. >> (4) Some validation is added. > > I do not think it's a good idea for the regression tests to do anything > to any databases other than regression. Especially not databases with > names that might match people's real databases. Oh, you mean calvin and hobbes might use postgresql? ;-) Ok, so I guess I can use regressionuser[123], regression[123] as names in the validation. Writing tests cases is not fun, so I tried to put some fun by using these characters. -- Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr
Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
>> I do not think it's a good idea for the regression tests to do anything
>> to any databases other than regression. Especially not databases with
>> names that might match people's real databases.
> Oh, you mean calvin and hobbes might use postgresql? ;-)
> Ok, so I guess I can use regressionuser[123], regression[123] as names in
> the validation. Writing tests cases is not fun, so I tried to put some fun
> by using these characters.
I don't really think it's necessary for the regression tests to test
this functionality.
regards, tom lane
>> Ok, so I guess I can use regressionuser[123], regression[123] as names in >> the validation. Writing tests cases is not fun, so I tried to put some fun >> by using these characters. > > I don't really think it's necessary for the regression tests to test > this functionality. Hummm... an interesting view, indeed. It fits neither my experience of programming nor my experience of computer security;-) It taught me that anything which is not tested does not work or will not work later on because someone will break some assumption. On the other hand, I understand that heavy test on "make check" are not necessary. So maybe some "make big_check" or the like? -- Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr
>>Ok, so I guess I can use regressionuser[123], regression[123] as names in >>the validation. Writing tests cases is not fun, so I tried to put some fun >>by using these characters. > > I don't really think it's necessary for the regression tests to test > this functionality. Once this machinery is in...can we use it to safely remove users? Chris
Would you adjust based on Tom's comments and resubmit? Thanks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Dear patchers, > > Please find attached a patch to fix schema ownership on first connection, > so that non system schemas reflect the database owner. > > (1) It adds a new "datisinit" attribute to pg_database, which tells > whether the database initialization was performed or not. > The documentation is updated accordingly. > > (2) This boolean is tested in postinit.c:ReverifyMyDatabase, > and InitializeDatabase is called if necessary. > > (3) The routine updates pg_database datisinit, as well as pg_namespace > ownership and acl stuff. > > (4) Some validation is added. This part validates for me > (although rules and errors regression tests are broken in current > cvs head, independtly of this patch). > > Some questions/comments : > > - is the place for the first connection housekeeping updates appropriate? > it seems so from ReverifyMyDatabase comments, but these are only comments. > > - it is quite convenient to use SPI_* stuff for this very rare updates, > but I'm not that confident about the issue... On the other hand, the > all-C solution would result in a much longer and less obvious code:-( > > - it is unclear to me whether it should be allowed to skip this under > some condition, when the database is accessed in "debug" mode from > a standalone postgres for instance? > > - also I'm wondering how to react (what to do and how to do it) on > errors within or under these initialization. For instance, how to > be sure that the CurrentUser is reset as expected? > > Thanks in advance for any comments. > > Have a nice day. > > -- > Fabien. Content-Description: [ Attachment, skipping... ] > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Dear Bruce, On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Would you adjust based on Tom's comments and resubmit? Thanks. Done. ! Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:31:59 +0200 (CEST) ! From: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> ! To: PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org> ! Subject: [PATCHES] fix schema ownership on first connection v2 Have a nice day, -- Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr