| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Misplaced superuser check in pg_log_backend_memory_contexts() |
| Date: | 2021-06-08 14:30:00 |
| Message-ID: | ae89efa3-d9e9-d8f4-d1c9-16dbbcfa6089@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021/06/08 11:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 11:13:40AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> However +1 for the patch, as it seems more consistent to always get a
>>> permission failure if you're not a superuser.
>>
>> Yeah, it's just weird if such a check is not the first thing
>> in the function. Even if you can convince yourself that the
>> actions taken before that don't create any security issue today,
>> it's not hard to imagine that innocent future code rearrangements
>> could break that argument. What's the value of postponing the
>> check anyway?
>
> Thanks for the input, I have applied the patch.
Thanks a lot!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-06-08 14:39:24 | Re: Move pg_attribute.attcompression to earlier in struct for reduced size? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-06-08 14:12:44 | Re: SSL SNI |