Re: pg_ls_dir & friends still have a hard-coded superuser check

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_ls_dir & friends still have a hard-coded superuser check
Date: 2017-01-26 01:22:12
Message-ID: 20170126012211.GF9812@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres,

* Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> On 2017-01-25 18:04:09 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Robert's made it clear that he'd like to have a blanket rule that we
> > don't have superuser checks in these code paths if they can be GRANT'd
> > at the database level, which goes beyond pg_ls_dir.
>
> That seems right to me. I don't see much benefit for the superuser()
> style checks, with a few exceptions. Granting by default is obviously
> an entirely different question.

Well, for my part at least, I disagree. Superuser is a very different
animal, imv, than privileges which can be GRANT'd, and I feel that's an
altogether good thing.

> In other words, you're trying to force people to do stuff your preferred
> way, instead of allowing them to get things done is a reasonable manner.

Apparently we disagree about what is a 'reasonable manner'.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-01-26 01:25:55 Re: Checksums by default?
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2017-01-26 01:18:18 Re: Checksums by default?