From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
cc: Wolfgang Walther <walther@technowledgy.de>,
        pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: User with BYPASSRLS privilege can't change password
In-reply-to: <20201103180641.GX16415@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <a5548a9f-89ee-3167-129d-162b5985fcf8@technowledgy.de>
 <923005.1604420579@sss.pgh.pa.us> <956994.1604425451@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20201103180641.GX16415@tamriel.snowman.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
	message dated "Tue, 03 Nov 2020 13:06:42 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <958389.1604427443.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 13:17:23 -0500
Message-ID: <958390.1604427443@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
>> @@ -739,7 +741,6 @@ AlterRole(AlterRoleStmt *stmt)
>>			 createrole < 0 &&
>>			 createdb < 0 &&
>>			 canlogin < 0 &&
>> -			 isreplication < 0 &&
>>			 !dconnlimit &&
>>			 !rolemembers &&
>>			 !validUntil &&

> This seems like an independent change..?  Not saying it's wrong though.

That test is redundant, since we wouldn't be in this path at all if
isreplication >= 0.  You could alternatively argue that this should
redundantly test all three of issuper, isreplication, and bypassrls;
but testing just one of them is confusing and hence bug-prone.

			regards, tom lane