| From: | Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Monitoring roles patch |
| Date: | 2017-03-28 17:52:40 |
| Message-ID: | B63B4B66-6063-4743-BB45-5AF2C2B47D87@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 9:55 AM, 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?
Sorry, I meant to say that there is no precedent for allowing access to data based
on a hardcoded test for membership in a role other than superuser. All the
locations that use pg_signal_backend are checking for something other than
data access privileges. That distinction was clear to me in the context of what I
was saying, but I obviously didn't phrase it right in my email.
mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-03-28 17:52:50 | Protection lost in expression eval changeover |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2017-03-28 17:50:49 | Re: Monitoring roles patch |