From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Removing pg_pltemplate and creating "trustable" extensions
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 13:27:47 -0500
Message-ID: <8636.1578335267@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmobJFrdrjak+RJq=8FrSe6fFZC_qrOasneAmz2b3Ux7TYQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5889.1566415762@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<c15c0f58-79a9-4051-1f43-8fc06564df69@2ndquadrant.com>
<27727.1573052802@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20191107183856.GY6962@tamriel.snowman.net>
<31658.1573152852@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20191107191320.GZ6962@tamriel.snowman.net>
<CA+TgmobJFrdrjak+RJq=8FrSe6fFZC_qrOasneAmz2b3Ux7TYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 2:13 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> I do not agree that we should just shift to using default roles instead
>> of adding new options to GRANT because of an entirely internal
>> implementation detail that we could fix (and should, as I've said for
>> probably 10 years now...).
> +1.
> I'm not sure that Tom's latest design idea is a bad one, but I
> strongly suspect that wrapping ourselves around the axle to work
> around our unwillingness to widen a 16-bit quantity to 32 bits (or a
> 32 bit quantity to 64 bits) is a bad idea. Perhaps there are also
> design ideas that we should consider, like separating "basic"
> privileges and "extended" privileges or coming up with some altogether
> new and better representation. But limiting ourselves to 4 more
> privileges ever cannot be the right solution.
So, is that actually an objection to the current proposal, or just
an unrelated rant?
If we think that a privilege bit on databases can actually add something
useful to this design, the fact that it moves us one bit closer to needing
to widen AclMode doesn't seem like a serious objection. But I don't
actually see what such a bit will buy for this purpose. A privilege bit
on a database is presumably something that can be granted or revoked by
the database owner, and I do not see that we want any such behavior for
extension installation privileges.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, sfrost@snowman.net, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Removing pg_pltemplate and creating "trustable" extensions
In-Reply-To: <8636.1578335267@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox