| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| 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 16:55:36 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZA-gM+Un0E65seyVT45axpaH8q-QRDs8L+nSUrynkSMA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-03-28 16:58:11 | Re: [PATCH] Move all am-related reloption code into src/backend/access/[am-name] and get rid of relopt_kind for custom AM |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-28 16:54:09 | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |