| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mark Volpe <volpe(dot)mark(at)epa(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | AW: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions |
| Date: | 2001-06-25 10:12:42 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368344@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > This patch will implement the "ENABLE PRIVILEGE" and "DISABLE PRIVILEGE"
> > commands in PL/pgSQL, which, respectively, change the effective uid to that
> > of the function owner and back. It doesn't break security (I hope). The
> > commands can be abbreviated as "ENABLE" and "DISABLE" for the poor saps that
Anybody else want to object to this abbreviation idea ? Seems
reading ENABLE; or DISABLE; is very hard to interpret in source code
(enable what ?) and should thus not be allowed (or allow "ENABLE PRIV").
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2001-06-25 10:17:10 | AW: Good name for new lock type for VACUUM? |
| Previous Message | Lincoln Yeoh | 2001-06-25 06:34:51 | Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords |