pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Monitoring roles patch
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:52:40 -0700
Message-ID: <B63B4B66-6063-4743-BB45-5AF2C2B47D87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoZA-gM+Un0E65seyVT45axpaH8q-QRDs8L+nSUrynkSMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+OCxoyRdsc1xyLfF9s698gUGyPXBs4CvJ+0Gwo8U65NmYJ7pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmobveXzVPytFOO3AkmsM+Y=YEG+UXcCvgwAt+SgYj85OCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+OCxox9c9-1=bXxA6-gr-iWZbD5zdHYMz=cpC034RKB7zX40Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoZ5zs50mEzALJqp3qBMC+CdT0ccnjvNJt1Ojiu9rz35zw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170322131510.GC9812@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<CA+OCxoyt9OMWaK=g2sL8qCTcwrS-8j3=06AZLzXQZ61sUn7gtA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+OCxozGTGd-x+cx03N=KJVK=soJwOpTWkq_=zac3P04aBCU4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20170323122335.GK9812@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<CA+OCxozZxJouNjY4+-heYSUk=qagoytQXnSjMyO5-R_a_mddKA@mail.gmail.com>
	<c1d3db24-85f0-96bb-0ec3-aeddd9d35941@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CA+OCxox8HW6obNKY5atVA6pX=Z=wQw6rTGcggy4N05k=mLkaAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<FEE8D3A7-FDBF-432F-BEEF-F28B7D3AD2F4@gmail.com>
	<CA+OCxoy7rqEZ65byS+3E_0dsTKYD8NcUzQB1SiGknARmbxBTDg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoZA-gM+Un0E65seyVT45axpaH8q-QRDs8L+nSUrynkSMA@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>


> On Mar 28, 2017, at 9:55 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>> I don't see any precedent in the code for having a hardcoded role, other than
>>> superuser, and allowing privileges based on a hardcoded test for membership
>>> in that role.  I'm struggling to think of all the security implications of that.
>> 
>> This would be the first.
> 
> Isn't pg_signal_backend an existing precedent?

Sorry, I meant to say that there is no precedent for allowing access to data based
on a hardcoded test for membership in a role other than superuser.  All the
locations that use pg_signal_backend are checking for something other than
data access privileges.  That distinction was clear to me in the context of what I
was saying, but I obviously didn't phrase it right in my email.

mark

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (61+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <B63B4B66-6063-4743-BB45-5AF2C2B47D87@gmail.com>
Permalink:  ../B63B4B66-6063-4743-BB45-5AF2C2B47D87@gmail.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/B63B4B66-6063-4743-BB45-5AF2C2B47D87@gmail.com

 · 

reply
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: hornschnorter@gmail.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, dpage@pgadmin.org, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, sfrost@snowman.net
  Subject: Re: Monitoring roles patch
  In-Reply-To: <B63B4B66-6063-4743-BB45-5AF2C2B47D87@gmail.com>

* 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