| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |
| Date: | 2023-02-22 18:49:42 |
| Message-ID: | 885394f24ca2c9f0aa67687f66a876425e83288b.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2023-02-22 at 09:27 -0800, Mark Dilger wrote:
> Another option is to execute under the intersection of their
> privileges, where both the definer and the invoker need the
> privileges in order for the action to succeed. That would be more
> permissive than the proposed SECURITY NONE, while still preventing
> either party from hijacking privileges of the other.
Interesting idea, I haven't heard of something like that being done
before. Is there some precedent for that or a use case where it's
helpful?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2023-02-22 18:49:47 | Re: [PATCH] Fix unbounded authentication exchanges during PQconnectPoll() |
| Previous Message | Kirk Wolak | 2023-02-22 18:42:22 | Re: Proposal: %T Prompt parameter for psql for current time (like Oracle has) |