From: | Ryan Murphy <ryanfmurphy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Add default role 'pg_access_server_files' |
Date: | 2018-01-06 20:01:41 |
Message-ID: | 151526890110.1766.16625038855701720951.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen, so far I've read thru your patch and familiarized myself with some of the auth functionality in pg_authid.h and src/backend/utils/adt/acl.c
The only question I have so far about your patch is the last several hunks of the diff, which remove superuser checks without adding anything immediately obvious in their place:
...
@@ -195,11 +205,6 @@ pg_read_file(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
char *filename;
text *result;
- if (!superuser())
- ereport(ERROR,
- (errcode(ERRCODE_INSUFFICIENT_PRIVILEGE),
- (errmsg("must be superuser to read files"))));
-
/* handle optional arguments */
if (PG_NARGS() >= 3)
{
@@ -236,11 +241,6 @@ pg_read_binary_file(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
char *filename;
bytea *result;
- if (!superuser())
- ereport(ERROR,
- (errcode(ERRCODE_INSUFFICIENT_PRIVILEGE),
- (errmsg("must be superuser to read files"))));
-
/* handle optional arguments */
if (PG_NARGS() >= 3)
{
@@ -313,11 +313,6 @@ pg_stat_file(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
TupleDesc tupdesc;
bool missing_ok = false;
- if (!superuser())
- ereport(ERROR,
- (errcode(ERRCODE_INSUFFICIENT_PRIVILEGE),
- (errmsg("must be superuser to get file information"))));
-
/* check the optional argument */
if (PG_NARGS() == 2)
missing_ok = PG_GETARG_BOOL(1);
...
I wanted to ask if you have reason to believe that these checks were not necessary (and therefore can be deleted instead of replaced by is_member_of_role() checks like you did elsewhere). I still have limited understanding of the overall code, so really just asking because it's the first thing that jumped out.
Best,
Ryan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2018-01-06 20:29:07 | Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types |
Previous Message | Ryan Murphy | 2018-01-06 19:10:43 | Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)? |