| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Färber, Franz-Josef (StMUK) <Franz-Josef(dot)Faerber(at)stmuk(dot)bayern(dot)de>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extension pg_trgm, permissions and pg_dump order |
| Date: | 2022-05-27 18:53:35 |
| Message-ID: | 2703829.1653677615@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-general |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Why isn't the current behavior - i.e. failing with a permissions error
> - correct? I mean I realize it's wrong in the sense that you can't
> restore a dump you just took, but what about from a security
> perspective?
From the security perspective it may be just fine. Nonetheless,
we need to un-break pg_dump; it's not optional for that to work.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-05-27 19:29:07 | Re: Extension pg_trgm, permissions and pg_dump order |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-05-27 18:46:41 | Re: Extension pg_trgm, permissions and pg_dump order |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Don Seiler | 2022-05-27 19:00:55 | autovacuum on primary blocking queries on replica? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-05-27 18:46:41 | Re: Extension pg_trgm, permissions and pg_dump order |