Re: Monitoring roles patch

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 17:04:00
Message-ID: CA+OCxoxQvBV9XFv3QnjpTAJuZ8hHGuLX_ZO65Av8u7G5XL_z1g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:55 PM, 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?

Good point. Clearly time for some caffeine.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavan Deolasee 2017-03-28 17:05:53 Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
Previous Message Pavan Deolasee 2017-03-28 17:03:18 Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)