Re: pg_cancel_backend by non-superuser

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_cancel_backend by non-superuser
Date: 2011-10-02 12:50:09
Message-ID: 20111002125009.GA19489@tornado.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 06:55:51AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
> <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 01-10-2011 17:44, Daniel Farina wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> ?wrote:
> >>> ISTM it would be reasonably non-controversial to allow users to issue
> >>> pg_cancel_backend against other sessions logged in as the same userID.
> >>> The question is whether to go further than that, and if so how much.
> >>
> >> In *every* case -- and there are many -- where we've had people
> >> express pain, this would have sufficed.

+1 for allowing that unconditionally.

> > I see. What about passing this decision to DBA? I mean a GUC
> > can_cancel_session = user, dbowner (default is '' -- only superuser). You
> > can select one or both options. This GUC can only be changed by superuser.
>
> Or how about making it a grantable database-level privilege?

I think either is overkill. You can implement any policy by interposing a
SECURITY DEFINER wrapper around pg_cancel_backend().

nm

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2011-10-02 16:01:10 Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2011-10-02 12:21:31 Re: [REVIEW] pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp