From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Cross-backend signals and administration (Was: Re: pg_terminate_backend for same-role) |
Date: | 2012-03-27 13:11:38 |
Message-ID: | 20120327131138.GE29452@tornado.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 02:58:26PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:04, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 07:53:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I think the more important question is a policy question: do we want
> >> it to work like this? ?It seems like a policy question that ought to
> >> be left to the DBA, but we have no policy management framework for
> >> DBAs to configure what they do or do not wish to allow. ?Still, if
> >> we've decided it's OK to allow cancelling, I don't see any real reason
> >> why this should be treated differently.
> >
> > The DBA can customize policy by revoking public execute permissions on
> > pg_catalog.pg_terminate_backend and interposing a security definer function
> > implementing his checks. ?For the population who will want something different
> > here, that's adequate.
>
> Well, by that argument, we can keep pg_terminate_backend superuser
> only and have the user wrap a security definer function around it to
> *get* it, no?
Yes. However, if letting users terminate their own backends makes for a
better default, we should still make it so.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-03-27 13:37:18 | Re: Command Triggers patch v18 |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-03-27 13:03:30 | Re: Another review of URI for libpq, v7 submission |