Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review
Date: 2014-10-16 14:02:38
Message-ID: 20141016140238.GC28859@tamriel.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:
> > * Petr Jelinek (petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> >> Yeah it will, mainly because extensions can load modules and can
> >> have untrusted functions, we might want to limit which extensions
> >> are possible to create without being superuser.
>
> > The extension has to be available on the filesystem before it can be
> > created, of course. I'm not against providing some kind of whitelist or
> > similar which a superuser could control.. That's similar to how PLs
> > work wrt pltemplate, no?
>
> The existing behavior is "you can create an extension if you can execute
> all the commands contained in its script". I'm not sure that messing
> with that rule is a good idea; in any case it seems well out of scope
> for this patch.

Right, that's the normal rule. I still like the idea of letting
non-superusers create "safe" extensions, but I completely agree- beyond
the scope of this patch (as I noted in my initial post).

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-10-16 14:06:59 Re: Hide 'Execution time' in EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-10-16 13:59:36 Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review