Re: Installing PostgreSQL as "postgress" versus "root" Debate!

* Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com> [0151 12:51]:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:20:41 +0000, Dick Davies
> <rasputnik(at)hellooperator(dot)net> wrote:
> > > But only if either setuid root or executed by root. Hey, on my
> > > system even /bin/sh is owned by root; it would be funny of it
> > > executed as root
> > C'mon folks, the guy obviously made a booboo - no need to rub his
> > nose in it...
>
> I apologize if it felt like it.

Not really, i just thought the whole list would be joining in before long.

> Anyway, I've been thinking about it a bit;
> if pgsql files are owned by pgsql and some BAD user with too high
> privileges (say, plperlU or other unrestricted access), she can modify
> database files (like remove everything from data directory, etc.), and
> it matters little if files are owned by root or postgres -- the database
> data is owned by postgres.

Surely plperlu runs as the postgres user, not root?
(haven't got further than a few sequences yet, I'm an sql noob).
Removing database files isn't the same as replacing system binaries.

But you're right, psql (etc) in ~pgsql [which you have to do if you don't have
privileges to install anywhere else] sounds pretty dumb to me - then all local users
need to be able to read the database directories. So let's all stick with root
installs and be happy :)

--
'That question was less stupid; though you asked it in a profoundly stupid way.'
-- Prof. Farnsworth
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns