|From:||Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>|
|To:||Ivan Panchenko <wao(at)mail(dot)ru>|
|Cc:||Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: On login trigger: take three|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> On 3 Nov 2021, at 17:15, Ivan Panchenko <wao(at)mail(dot)ru> wrote:
> Среда, 29 сентября 2021, 15:14 +03:00 от Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru <x-msg://33/compose?To=teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>>:
> 2 For logging purpose failing of trigger will cause impossibility to login, it
> could be workarounded by catching error in trigger function, but it's not so
> obvious for DBA.
> If the trigger contains an error, nobody can login. The database is bricked.
> Previous variant of the patch proposed to fix this with going to single-user mode.
> For faster recovery I propose to have also a GUC variable to turn on/off the login triggers.
> It should be 'on' by default.
As voiced earlier, I disagree with this and I dislike the idea of punching a
hole for circumventing infrastructure intended for auditing.
Use-cases for a login-trigger commonly involve audit trail logging, session
initialization etc. If the login trigger bricks the production database to the
extent that it needs to be restarted with the magic GUC, then it's highly
likely that you *don't* want regular connections to the database for the
duration of this. Any such connection won't be subject to what the trigger
does which seem counter to having the trigger in the first place. This means
that it's likely that the superuser fixing it will have to disable logins for
everyone else while fixing, and it quicly becomes messy.
With that in mind, I think single-user mode actually *helps* the users in this
case, and we avoid a hole punched which in worst case can be a vector for an
Maybe I'm overly paranoid, but adding a backdoor of sorts for a situation which
really shouldn't happen doesn't seem like a good idea.
> some other issues:
> 3 It's easy to create security hole, see attachment where non-privileged user
> can close access to database even for superuser.
> Such cases can be avoided by careful design of the login triggers and related permissions. Added such note to the documentation.
If all login triggers are written carefully like that, we don't need the GUC to
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
|Next Message||Thomas Munro||2021-11-03 21:06:34||Re: [PATCH] Native spinlock support on RISC-V|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2021-11-03 20:40:57||Re: Empty string in lexeme for tsvector|