TODO item: make pg_shadow updates more robust

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: TODO item: make pg_shadow updates more robust
Date: 1998-08-02 23:28:13
Message-ID: 22591.902100493@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I learned the hard way last night that the postmaster's password
authentication routines don't look at the pg_shadow table. They
look at a separate file named pg_pwd, which certain backend operations
will update from pg_shadow. (This is not documented in any user
documentation that I could find; I had to burrow into
src/backend/commands/user.c to discover it.)

Unfortunately, if a clueless dbadmin (like me ;-)) tries to update
password data with the obvious thing,
update pg_shadow set passwd = 'xxxxx' where usename = 'yyyy';
pg_pwd doesn't get fixed.

A more drastic problem is that pg_dump believes it can save and
restore pg_shadow data using "copy". Following an initdb and restore
from a pg_dump -z script, pg_shadow will look just fine, but only
the database admin will be listed in pg_pwd. This is likely to provoke
some confusion, IMHO.

As a short-term thing, the fact that you *must* set passwords with
ALTER USER ought to be documented, preferably someplace where a
dbadmin who's never heard of ALTER USER is likely to find it.

As a longer-term thing, I think it would be far better if ordinary
SQL operations on pg_shadow just did the right thing. Wouldn't it
be possible to implement copying to pg_pwd by means of a trigger on
pg_shadow updates, or something like that?

(I'm afraid that pg_dump -z is pretty well broken for operations on
a password-protected database, btw. Has anyone used it successfully
in that situation?)

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Hartwig 1998-08-03 00:15:48 Re: [HACKERS] 6.4 Aggregate Bug
Previous Message Tom Lane 1998-08-02 22:40:28 Re: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] User authentication bug?