From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Why READ ONLY |
Date: | 2003-12-02 06:30:11 |
Message-ID: | 87ptf720lo.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I assume this patch is to control this way of breaking out of a
> read-only transaction:
> [...]
> This seems like a valuable feature, as others have mentioned.
Why is this feature valuable?
A "read only user" is still able to easily DOS the server, consume
arbitrary disk space[1], and prevent other users from accessing data
(using LOCK, for example). It has been a long-standing fact that
giving a user the ability to execute arbitrary SQL is a security hole;
if you plan to change that, ISTM that a lot more work is necessary.
-Neil
[1] Whether they are allowed to create temp tables or not: plenty of
other parts of the executor use temporary storage.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Randolf Richardson | 2003-12-02 18:05:13 | Re: PostgreSQL Advocacy, Thoughts and Comments |
Previous Message | Sean Chittenden | 2003-12-02 00:15:39 | Re: [PATCH] Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Why READ ONLY transactions? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Manfred Koizar | 2003-12-02 09:24:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Index creation takes for ever |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2003-12-02 05:58:19 | Re: Partitions implementation with views |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-12-02 06:34:58 | Re: introduce "default_use_oids" |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-12-02 00:45:40 | Re: export FUNC_MAX_ARGS as a read-only GUC variable |