Re: Permissions on CHECKPOINT

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Permissions on CHECKPOINT
Date: 2001-01-26 23:17:28
Message-ID: 200101262317.SAA17184@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Tom Lane wrote:
> >Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> >> Mikheev, Vadim writes:
> >>> Yes, there should be permission checking - I'll add it later (in 7.1)
> >>> if no one else.
> >
> >> Should be simple enough. Is this okay:
> >
> >Actually, I think a more interesting question is "should CHECKPOINT
> >have permission restrictions? If so, what should they be?"
> >
> >A quite relevant precedent is that Unix systems (at least the ones
> >I've used) do not restrict who can call sync().
>
> What about DoS attacks? What would be the effect of someone's setting
> off an infinite loop of CHECKPOINTs?

Don't we have bigger DoS attacks? Certainly SELECT cash_out(1) is a
much bigger one.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-01-26 23:22:59 Re: postmaster -S will not print an error if pid file exists
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-01-26 23:13:25 Re: Bug in FOREIGN KEY