Re: if (!superuser) checks

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: if (!superuser) checks
Date: 2016-04-22 23:29:25
Message-ID: 20160422232925.j7ocupa5w25ykinj@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2016-04-22 14:56:44 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> The idea we came up with is to have a pg_replication default role which
> essentially replaces the REPLICATION role attribute. Andres didn't see
> it as being terribly valuable to disallow a role with the REPLICATION
> attribute from logging into the database directly, if it's allowed to do
> so by pg_hba.conf.

Not just not useful, but rather an anti-feature.

> Lastly, Andres felt that we could keep the syntax for
> setting/unsetting the role attribute and just convert those into
> GRANT/REVOKE statements for the pg_replication role. I'm not thrilled
> with that idea as it feels a bit unnecessary at this point, given the
> relatively few users of pg_logical_* functions by tools

Uh, that's not just about the pg_logical_ functions. It's primarily
about scripts which setup a postgres cluster, including replicas. Those
will frequently (hopefully at least) include creating/altering a role to
have the replication flag set?

> Andres, please correct me if any of the above is incorrect.

Nothing but the above point stands out.

- Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2016-04-23 00:24:53 Re: pg_dump dump catalog ACLs
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-04-22 22:37:48 Re: kqueue