From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Permissions on CHECKPOINT |
Date: | 2001-01-26 23:17:28 |
Message-ID: | 200101262317.SAA17184@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> >> Mikheev, Vadim writes:
> >>> Yes, there should be permission checking - I'll add it later (in 7.1)
> >>> if no one else.
> >
> >> Should be simple enough. Is this okay:
> >
> >Actually, I think a more interesting question is "should CHECKPOINT
> >have permission restrictions? If so, what should they be?"
> >
> >A quite relevant precedent is that Unix systems (at least the ones
> >I've used) do not restrict who can call sync().
>
> What about DoS attacks? What would be the effect of someone's setting
> off an infinite loop of CHECKPOINTs?
Don't we have bigger DoS attacks? Certainly SELECT cash_out(1) is a
much bigger one.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-26 23:22:59 | Re: postmaster -S will not print an error if pid file exists |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-26 23:13:25 | Re: Bug in FOREIGN KEY |