Re: Proposal: two new role attributes and/or capabilities?

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal: two new role attributes and/or capabilities?
Date: 2014-12-23 19:04:20
Message-ID: 20141223190420.GN3062@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* David G Johnston (david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> I'd rather there be better, more user friendly, SQL-based APIs to the
> permissions system that would facilitate performing and reviewing grants.

This would be *really* nice, I agree. I've heard tale of people writing
functions that go through the catalog based on a given user and spit
back everything that they have permissions to. Would be really nice if
we had those kinds of functions built-in.

> If something like IMPERSONATE was added I would strongly suggest a
> corresponding "[NO]IMPERSONATE" for CREATE USER so that the admin can make
> specific roles unimpersonable - and also make SUPERUSER roles unimpersonable
> by rule.

I agree that this would be necessary.. but strikes me as less of a
complete solution than what the existing pg_auth_members approach grants
you.

Perhaps a better idea would be to simply make the bouncer unnecessary by
having a in-PG connection pooler type of system. That's been discussed
previously and shot down but it's still one of those things that's on my
wish-list for PG.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2014-12-23 19:05:14 Re: Proposal: two new role attributes and/or capabilities?
Previous Message José Luis Tallón 2014-12-23 19:00:18 Re: Proposal: two new role attributes and/or capabilities?