Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ciKj0-0003QA-D6 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:48:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ciKiy-00067Y-Lo for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:48:20 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ciKix-000679-Ld for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:48:19 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ciKiv-0001tz-CI for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:48:18 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v1RCmD1a018548; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 07:48:13 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Andrew Dunstan , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" , Jan Wieck Subject: Re: I propose killing PL/Tcl's "modules" infrastructure In-reply-to: References: <22067.1488046447@sss.pgh.pa.us> <234c68e3-47ee-4db1-fe6d-6a5de56575b6@2ndQuadrant.com> <23184.1488048288@sss.pgh.pa.us> <33fe0208-74df-1a03-08af-9a4f0d1ed14d@2ndQuadrant.com> <24478.1488050485@sss.pgh.pa.us> <45faa542-212a-5225-2b62-c80a8df2d0fd@2ndQuadrant.com> <18606.1488138882@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:23:04 +0530" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <18546.1488199693.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 07:48:13 -0500 Message-ID: <18547.1488199693@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> * I'm not terribly comfortable about what the permissions levels of the >> GUCs ought to be. ... Maybe we'd better make them both SUSET. > Making them SUSET sounds like a usability fail to me. I'm not sure > how bad the security risks of NOT making them SUSET are, but I think > if we find that SUSET is required for safety then we've squeezed most > of the value out of the feature. Well, the feature it's replacing (autoload an "unknown" module) had to be squeezed down to being effectively superuser-only, so we're not really losing anything compared to where we are now. And the more I think about it, the less I think we can introduce a new security-critical GUC and just leave it as USERSET. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers