Re: Monitoring roles patch

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Monitoring roles patch
Date: 2017-03-24 16:46:12
Message-ID: CA+OCxoyuW71uA8TqLpiOk33gB38fwZAUL=1L5wWcGCTu2SAiwg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> If we make the users run all the statements individually then they'll
>> also have to get an updated script for the next version of PG too
>> because we will have added things that the tools will want access to.
>
> That's possible, but it really depends on the tool, not on core
> PostgreSQL. The tool should be the one providing the script, because
> the tool is what knows its own permissions requirements. Users who
> care about security won't want to grant every privilege given by a
> pg_monitor role to a tool that only needs a subset of those
> privileges.

The upshot of this would be that every time there's a database server
upgrade that changes the permissions required somehow, the user has to
login to every server they have and run a script. It is no longer a
one-time thing, which makes it vastly more painful to deal with
upgrades.

>> With the approach that Dave and I are advocating, we can avoid all of
>> that. Contrib modules can bake-in GRANTs to the appropriate roles,
>> upgrades can be handled smoothly even when we add new capabilities which
>> are appropriate, users have a simple and straight-forward way to set up
>> good monitoring, and tool authors will know what permissions are
>> available and can finally have a better answer than "well, just make the
>> monior user superuser if you want to avoid all these complexities."
>
> They can have that anyway. They just have to run a script provided by
> the tool rather than one provided by the core project as a
> one-size-fits-all solution for every tool.

Do you object to having individual default roles specifically for
cases where there are superuser-only checks at the moment that prevent
GRANT? e.g. pg_show_all_settings for SHOW, pg_show_all_stats for
pg_tablespace_size and friends, pg_stat_statements for, well,
pg_stat_statements and so on? It would be an inferior solution in my
opinion, given that it would demonstrably cause users more work, but
at least we could do something.

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

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-03-24 16:46:56 Re: BUG: pg_dump generates corrupted gzip file in Windows
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-03-24 16:43:59 Re: parallel "return query" is no good