| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Monitoring roles patch |
| Date: | 2017-03-28 17:37:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20170328173721.GF9812@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> >> I don't see any precedent in the code for having a hardcoded role, other than
> >> superuser, and allowing privileges based on a hardcoded test for membership
> >> in that role. I'm struggling to think of all the security implications of that.
> >
> > This would be the first.
>
> Isn't pg_signal_backend an existing precedent?
Yes, it is.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-03-28 17:43:07 | Re: PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan |
| Previous Message | Shubham Barai | 2017-03-28 17:36:45 | GSoC 2017 Proposal for "Explicitly support predicate locks in index access methods besides btree" |