Re: [PATCH] Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Why READ ONLY

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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  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?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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