Re: Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal of superuser() checks

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Vaishnavi Prabakaran <vaishnaviprabakaran(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal of superuser() checks
Date: 2017-11-09 23:11:33
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQgJo4AxyRsV3kGq_=KKav0Apjasrr8PQRq+si_duYavQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I did miss the need to fix the docs, and am happy to put in some strong
> wording about the security hazards of these functions while fixing the
> docs. But I do not think that leaving them with hardwired superuser
> checks is an improvement over being able to control them with GRANT.

Sorry about that. lobj.sgml indeed mentions superusers. Do you need a patch?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-11-09 23:17:11 Re: libpq connection strings: control over the cipher suites?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-11-09 23:11:32 Re: [POC] hash partitioning