| From: | torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Misplaced superuser check in pg_log_backend_memory_contexts() |
| Date: | 2021-06-08 15:25:51 |
| Message-ID: | 9cca1f0d5acc4d808f92c058c031e246@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-06-08 11:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 11:13:40AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> However +1 for the patch, as it seems more consistent to always get a
>>> permission failure if you're not a superuser.
>>
>> Yeah, it's just weird if such a check is not the first thing
>> in the function. Even if you can convince yourself that the
>> actions taken before that don't create any security issue today,
>> it's not hard to imagine that innocent future code rearrangements
>> could break that argument. What's the value of postponing the
>> check anyway?
>
> Thanks for the input, I have applied the patch.
Thanks for your modification!
BTW, I did the same thing in another patch I'm proposing[1], so I'll fix
that as well.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/c6682a25f3f0e9bd520707342219eac5%40oss.nttdata.com
Regards,
--
Atsushi Torikoshi
NTT DATA CORPORATION
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-08 15:39:09 | Re: A modest proposal vis hierarchical queries: MINUS in the column list |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-08 15:21:34 | Re: Multiple hosts in connection string failed to failover in non-hot standby mode |