Re: Non-superuser subscription owners

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Non-superuser subscription owners
Date: 2021-11-25 04:21:22
Message-ID: CAA4eK1KnEptxtJTzo9LNb2VgRBYcBWxY+NSx2hJR8iUM8JXktw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 6:00 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2021-11-19 at 16:45 -0800, Mark Dilger wrote:
> > Renamed as 0001 in version 3, as it is the only remaining patch. For
> > anyone who reviewed the older patch set, please note that I made some
> > changes to the src/test/subscription/t/026_nosuperuser.pl test case
> > relative to the prior version.
>
> We need to do permission checking for WITH CHECK OPTION and RLS. The
> patch right now allows the subscription to write data that an RLS
> policy forbids.
>

Won't it be better to just check if the current user is superuser
before applying each change as a matter of this first patch? Sorry, I
was under impression that first, we want to close the current gap
where we allow to proceed with replication if the user's superuser
privileges were revoked during replication. To allow non-superusers
owners, I thought it might be better to first try to detect the change
of ownership as soon as possible instead of at the transaction
boundary.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amul Sul 2021-11-25 04:51:40 Re: Deduplicate code updating ControleFile's DBState.
Previous Message Andres Freund 2021-11-25 03:57:46 Re: Reduce function call costs on ELF platforms