| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> | 
|---|---|
| To: | "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: dropping a user causes pain (#2) | 
| Date: | 2003-08-12 01:09:52 | 
| Message-ID: | 189601c3606e$70b3b380$2800a8c0@mars | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
> Not sure I care for the "vacuum" part of that, but how about this
> variant: DROP USER sets a flag in pg_shadow to disable login, and
> the pg_shadow entry isn't removed, ever.  (We could tweak the pg_user
> view to hide dropped users, but anything looking directly at pg_shadow
> would have to be taught about the flag, analogous to what happened with
> attisdropped in the last release.)
> 
> The advantage here is that the sysid assigned to the user would remain
> present in pg_shadow and couldn't accidentally be assigned to a new
> user.  This would prevent the problem of new users "inheriting"
> permissions and even object ownership from deleted users due to chance
> coincidence of sysid.
> 
> I suppose one could delete the pg_shadow row once one is darn certain
> there is no trace of the user's sysid anywhere, but it's not clear to me
> it's worth the trouble.
+1
(Hey I've seen other people do that :P )
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-08-12 01:16:20 | Re: Oversight? | 
| Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2003-08-12 01:05:34 | pgstats_initstats() cost |