| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug #6593, extensions, and proposed new patch policy |
| Date: | 2012-04-19 01:10:58 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobTu8FgiSYDNb1UwintKyTvqhHK3PEDHj0VNVx1Cd+7-w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> However, ignoring that issue for the moment, this patch is making me
> uncomfortable. I have a vague recollection that we deliberately omitted
> ALTER EXTENSION OWNER because of security or definitional worries.
> (Dimitri, does that ring any bells?) I wonder whether we should insist
> that the new owner be a superuser, as the original owner must have been.
Don't we have non-superuser extensions, that can be installed with
just DBA privileges?
Anyhow, it seems a bit nannyish, unless I'm missing something. If the
current owner is a superuser and s/he wants to give the object to a
non-superuser, you can't really stop them. They can just make the
target user a superuser, give 'em the object, and make them not a
superuser, all in one transaction no less.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-19 01:13:03 | Re: Parameterized-path cost comparisons need some work |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-18 23:54:53 | Re: Bug #6593, extensions, and proposed new patch policy |