Re: advisory locks and permissions

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Subject: Re: advisory locks and permissions
Date: 2006-09-22 19:08:08
Message-ID: 20060922190808.GA24675@kenobi.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> >> An admin who is concerned about this can revoke public access on the
> >> functions for himself ... but should that be the default out-of-the-box
> >> configuration? I feel more comfortable with saying "you have to turn
> >> on this potentially-dangerous feature" than with saying you have to turn
> >> it off.
>
> > I agree with having it turned off by default, at least in 8.2.
>
> Do we have a consensus to do this for 8.2? Or are we going to leave it
> as is? Those are the only two realistic short-term options ...

I'm still of the opinion it'd be better disabled by default, but it
seems that the majority is going the other way. I guess in the end I'd
like to see most of these patched up in such a way that a given user
would be reasonably limited in their ability to DoS the server. That's
not going to happen today though.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-09-22 19:09:26 Re: advisory locks and permissions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-09-22 19:06:00 Re: advisory locks and permissions